Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, in which the Members of the Congress propose bills and debate them. The Second Chamber is where they are eventually voted. Paradoxically, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see this.

As prescribed by Article 6 of the Constitution, all Lovian citizens "may write and propose motions to the Federal Law", that "are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber." The MOTCs' duty is to "read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of a majority of Members of the Congress, changes may be proposed in the First Chamber." If a majority is likely to be found, the proposer will move the bill to the Second Chamber for a vote.

The First Chamber is not a popular assembly where all citizens can express their personal interests. Polling the population ought to happen outside of Congress.

006. State Elections
According to the latest reform:
 * During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
 * During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.

Because the majority of the Lovians prefers October as election month, and a minority wants September, we could do it like this:
 * 20th September - 3rd October: Candidacies
 * 4th October - 17th October: Elections
 * 18th October: Inauguration of the Governors and Deputy Governors

I'll ask Congress to vote on this proposal. But we also need to solve two more things before the candidacy period:
 * 1) we need to settle the number of residences each citizen has. We need to count them and make sure nobody has more than legally allowed.
 * 2) we need to register these residences in the "citizen book" so we know who can be a candidate in which state and who can vote in which state. This is very important.

Martha Van Ghent 08:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * PRO!! You work very hard martha, i like that! Jon   THE DUDE   Johnson  09:05, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Martha Van Ghent 09:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support!!! --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:37, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. Your swift action as an MOTC is appreciated! 13:00, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my support just as well. -- 14:21, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * For Martha's current bills all get s! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:20, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Got my support.  06:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Citizen residences count
If we want this huge work to get done, we better start now. I'll list up all citizens and their residences. When I find citizens with more residences than allowed, I'll send a message to him.

I will propose a bill to Congress to change the legal number of residence. I hope to do this before the counting really starts and all that. Please react fast. Martha Van Ghent 12:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

007. Amendment (Art.2): less legal residences
Currently: This reflects a strange sort of hierarchy, and I don't like that. So this is what I propose: There would be no difference between the King, the PM, the MOTCs or the citizens.
 * inhabitants have 1 residence
 * citizens can have 2 residences
 * MOTCs can have 3
 * the King and the PM can have 4
 * inhabitants may have 1 residence in Lovia
 * citizens may have maximum 3 residences in Lovia

In law, this would result in this Article 2 of the Const.:
 * Art. 2
 * 2. Every Lovian citizen has the right:
 * 1. To have a number of residences in Lovia, but no more than three.
 * 2. To participate in federal and state politics and to be a candidate in any Lovian election, unless he or she does not meet the requirements.

Art. 2.3 and 2.4 are deleted then.

Martha Van Ghent 12:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Very good. I'd been planning to do this myself too, but you know... forgot about it, I suppose. I suggest you better move it to the 2nd Chamber fast then. 12:59, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes; Martha Van Ghent 13:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be a very good thing. We need to de-establish the hierarchical structures embedded in the law, inherited from our Libertan days. As a matter of fact, we needed this structure to make people want to become a politician. Nowadays in Lovia, we have politicians who want to be politicians for politics' sake. So, we may abandon this artifact. -- 14:24, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Walden srtikes again! Again very good martha! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:18, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

008. Census!
Okay State Elections are coming up and we couldn't get a census law Passed so I think we extend the power of the Department of TL to count the census every December and August. So I would do the work! No One would have to do anything at all! It would just be me! I don't think this needs a law but just a formal agreement since I'm appointed. Thank You. Marcus Villanova WLP 23:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Marcus, check proposal 006., I already proposed to count all citizen residences, in order to know who can vote where. So, we just have to get the 007. bill passed and then we'll count in a hurry. Martha Van Ghent 05:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * True. 08:24, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this convo still isn't closed yet beacuse who will count the people. Even if you count them on page Citizen it doesn't matter beacuse you still need to know the forumula to counting people on page Wikination:Census. Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:57, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

009. Full authority
I noticed a possible future problem concerning the disappearing state level and the federal level. We are just in a beginning phase of constitutional evolution, and future authority problems might show up in cases which haven't been fully 'donated' to the congress by the law or constitution, so here is what i propose: It's only a small phrase, but it might solve future problems.
 * 1) The state governors have full authority on state matters unless the competence has been given to congress by the constitution or the federal law.

This might include that some states will hunt to find undistributed powers and competences so here's what I suggest concerning this accessory problem:
 * 1) The competences which are appropriated by the states and the decisions which could be made due to this appropriation can be rolled back by the congress.
 * 2) Congress has to vote on these matters and can only roll back decisions following out of incorrect authority appropriation or subsidiarity.
 * 3) When the governor wishes not to agree with the decision of congress, the case has to be judged by the authority court. This court will control whether the congress had the power to destroy the state decision, checking the constitution and the federal law.

This will of course mean that a judge court needs to be implemented, but it can be done easily, we can use the same judge of the State Court, or someone who has a greater knowledge of the laws in Lovia. Please read carefully and give comment fast, if this law must pass, it must be done before the state elections.

P.S.: @Dimi, I'm very busy at this time, with my 'herexamens' so I'm unable to check where these phrases should be implemented, could you check it please, and if they need to be rewritten could you also do that. JON  THE DUDE   JOHNSON  11:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an important issue you bring up here Johnson. But in fact, I already built in an "achterdeurtje" (backdoor) in the state reform. Article 5 of the Constitution now includes this phrase:
 * "All competencies not covered by the states inhere to the federal level."
 * Which implies of course, that unless the competencies are explicitly given to the states (e.g. the naming of waterways), all the others belong to Congress. This is by far the most simple solution. It does not require the complex judgment of a Supreme Court Judge. Also, it is the more democratic solution - Congress being a representative institution, more than the Governorship. 14:39, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, but I think that 'my solution' (it's a big word for a small issue :p) could mean a faster evolution of our law and constitution, meaning that we could renew our law every time some state comes up with a new competence of which the governor think's it might be in his hands, also what about competences not for seen in the law? Since everything not being in the law is authorized some smart asses (read Jon) could use that against the country :p JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  15:32, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting issue. I must look into this for sure! 16:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed. Tough to use it against the country, though. BTW: The SC Judge may settle disputes between a state and the federal government. That would solve all abuse. 16:46, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's what i propose, in case of a problem in which we can't seem to agree, arthie has the power to solve it, if he wants to and if the law get's through of course JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  17:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the local level has been demolished? I feel more like a converbelt way is better, Local - State - Federal. I'd still like to see a law passed concerning Local Politics like, Every person living in an occupation is a member of that Town's Council, that can make or pass local laws. (Simple ones like Speed Limit Etc.) I'm never fond of State Councils Or State Senates but Local Councils gets everyone involved in politics, even if there voting on stupid things like Speed Limit or what to do about the Baer Population in the Town. In this case then the mayor/chairman could veto it...Etc. Also there's no law saying I can't Be Mayor of a town for 59 Years. I just don't have to hold elections and that's that, seems un-democratice right? Well if we have a City Council it Involes Eveyone and then they can decide term limits and how long a term is. Otherwise I don't mind this bill all too much but will probaly vote Absent. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 19:02, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point, the state level still exists, where the local level doesn't. The state level will now revive, hence the elections, so problems can arise when a governor wishes to change something on the state level, but has to ask permission to people who aren't aware of the situation. If this decision is against the law or the subsidiary-beginning the congress is given the power to roll back. This is necessary for an evolution of or constitution and our law. JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  20:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * That totally sucks, doesn't it? I don't think you found the point of my rebuddle, which is to keep the Local Level, strong and Local so that it doesn't get much power. Now the state Level is too strong!? As I said the people involed with local politics would stay local. Again I vote Absent on this!Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 20:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get it i think, but never mind, a last try: Local level doesn't exist and that needs to stay so (i know it exists but it has no power, it's more of an honor actually). The state level however exists, and since a short time this level is starting to disappear, trying to unite power on top. In October state elections will be held, so the state level will become more and more attractive and popular. The current laws give all power to the congress (read: power on unmentioned competences). Now i think that this needs to be changed, i want to give all unmentioned competences to the state, this way this level can mean an evolution to the state. Because sometimes laws (or something smaller, something like a state regulation) can really boost a state, now this can cause problems like taking competences that harm the state, here congress can vote to roll back. it's been well taught over! I hope you see what i mean we need your vote. JON  THE DUDE   JOHNSON  22:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * The influence of Belgian political methods seems to stretch far these days: they can't compose a government in the Netherlands, Lovia keeps state reforming, ... Serious now: I prefer a strong, centralized state that is democratic and transparent. In Lovia we do however hold a certain 'inheritance' with our states and local levels. Those two lower levels have become combined in the last reform, which means the states are as local as actual policy gets. It is on that level we need to 'get people involved'. Isn't that what both of you say?  11:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so, is that a pro or a contra? JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  13:55, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jon - Oh well yeah i kinda knew that it doesn't exist but, I love local politics. Sorry for the confusion. I'm still thinking over the bill that was proposed. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to support it. It may need some rewriting but it gives more liberty to regional communities. In a way it can make the states become local politics, or is it the other way round? Harold Freeman 15:18, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, It raises State power to about where state level should be at. And Totaly demolishes Local politics. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:26, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't demolish the local level, with or without this law the local level doesn't exist, and i can't change that, but this law brings politics to the people, like harold says, this could be seen as the new local level, thanks harold JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  15:46, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still. I want a local level, it occurs to me that our argument really doesn't matter. I will Vote on this bill! But again letting people know, anyway I still think we should have an active Local level, like I said it gets everyone involved! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:52, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks man, maybe we ougt to write local politics together, something that allows the local politics, in a way that doesn't make things complex, what do you think? JON   THE DUDE   JOHNSON  15:59, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this bill too. Local levels could be organized by making community pressure groups like 'people united for a Noble City forest'. Harold Freeman 15:58, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already that like HEMPPAC, NPP, LMFPAC I mean like an orginized local government. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:03, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Practically impossible
It's practically impossible, Jon. Take taxes, as an example: there are no federal taxes. So, according to you, a Governor could tax anything he wants. That's no big deal is it? But he could tax products from other states. Tax differences would cause companies to move around; states to lose income; people to lose jobs. Which fucked-up socialist comes up with an idea like that? Holy ! Centralize, please! This is getting way too Belgian. 16:04, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we were writing some stuff in, I think Jon's sandpit and Percival's sidepages. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:07, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like cold civil war? Harold Freeman 16:08, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:09, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was of course just an example. Every hole in the law would become a chance for five different governors to do as they like, without the consultation of the people. A judge can settle differences? Fine. Arthur, you better get working. Where did the "simplify" go? This is making Lovia less democratic and less transparant. If you want the people to get in touch with politics and law, we must make it simple and not obscure! 16:10, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to shout my friend: who raises his voice over the clouds wont be able to see it anymore. I understand the point you are making here, it is a good point.Harold Freeman 16:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply agree, I think that Govenors should decide taxes, but since we don't have local state ppolitics things could go undemocratic. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:20, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have thought about democratic state level. Problem is we don't have the politicians. With only ten to fifteen active citizens, we cannot fill five+one parliaments. That's why we decided to make the state level the new "local level", giving them town and city powers. The actual state powers, that required a democratic approach, were given Congress. 16:23, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * A good proposal is one that is talked about so this one qualifies. I must however admit the kings sounds like he knows. Harold Freeman 16:27, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe Five Members per state? I mean that could work right? That wouldn't be as active as Congress so it would be okay? Right? Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:29, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Marcus: we only have 15 active editors. Therefore, some people would be in several assemblies. Then why not just assemble together, as we do now? 16:32, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna look at every town and city to see, it might take 10 - 15 mins. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 16:42, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks king for your shouting here, but hey, i don't like it this way neither, we are in a stadium of complete paralyze, states can't move, everything has to be seen by a congress that mostly doesn't decide on such things, Marcus tried to implement a census, something witch could be a perfect state competence, but whatever Marcus tried, nobody was listening or helping (I know that encapsulates me too) but I really think we have two options here, or we quit installing the state elections (due to hallow level, because what are the city and town right?) Or we should start thinking to implement a legal way of introducing the states without starting a secession war! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  18:38, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait what are you taking about State Secession? I don't that's gonna happen right? Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:44, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but the king is afraid, that my solution would be a way to do so, or at least a way to use the law against the country <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  18:50, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that happening. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:51, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Me neither <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  19:03, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * The king is aware that a system like the one you propose will complicate several mechanisms, and will not solve problems that cannot be solved now. 15:26, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

010/11/12. The Civil Law on family matters
I have a series of three proposals that I would like to ad to the Federal Law. There is one on marriage and divorce, one on legal cohabiting and one on parenthood. To make things not too difficult I will only write a short description here, the full texts can be found here.


 * Marriage Act: A law concerning the duties of married people, the conditions and procedure to marry and the provisions to terminate a marriage.
 * Legal Cohabiting Act: A law that makes it possible to live together without being married.
 * Parenthood Act: Determining the relationship between child and parents.

I know this isn't a priority but it would be nice to have married Lovians etc. Please comment. 09:07, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I love it! As I wrote in your sandpit. It makes Lovia a real country, with real laws and such. Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 14:17, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it okay if I check 'em Wednesday? I'm sorta occupied until then. 15:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty good bill that makes us a real country! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 15:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yuri is really good at this . I think we can be happy with such a good PM. 15:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into social security and criminal law for the moment but it might require some rearranging within the Federal Law. 05:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some problems with the second proposal. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:25, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the second? Then I did a great job.  09:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, good! Marcus Villanova WLP [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 14:26, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol! 15:50, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

013. Newport = a what?
We voted a bill on the recognition of existing localities. Newport has never been a full neighborhood, but does have a page, a map and even an inhabitant (Marcus). Could we perhaps make it a Hurbanova hamlet? Seems like the best solution to me. 17:04, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * The town was already there and looked small and in touch with nature. IDK why it's a niegboorhood it should be a hamlet of Hurbanova tho. Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:05, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. 17:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a neighborhood. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:46, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to recognize Newport as a HU hamlet
Please comment. It's rather urgent! This has to go to 2nd Chamber in a hurry. 17:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Go put it to the second chamber no one really would disagree! Go! The Newport Mayor says Pro! Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:09, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW Marcus: there are no more Mayors/Chairmen. 17:13, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * It still on every page though, want me to delete that? Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:17, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * You may :) I'll do it too when I still see it :) 17:20, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * kk. That's the project of the day. Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:23, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh... Newport is a neighborhood of Hurbanova... It lies directly next to Drake Town.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:46, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah but Hurbanova isn't a City right? Newport is too small and should be a Hamlet. Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:47, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? Newport is the fourth neighborhood, not the fifth. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:48, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to page Hurbanova it is only Neighboorhoods are Millstreet, Drake Town, and Downtown Hurbanova and East Hills is a Hamlet belogining to it. Nothing about Newport. Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 17:53, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because three neighborhoods have been deleted in the past and Newport was restored recently. Pages like Drake Town in the infobox: Next to Downtown Hurbanova, Millstreet, Newport. See in the history of the page: . --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:56, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * So newport, Muza and what was the third? I see but it now isn't and that totally sucks but it should be a hamlet of HU. Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:00, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, downtown, Millstreet, Drake Town and Newport. Well, why should an area of three houses which is built adjacent to another town be a hamlet, while there is no real difference (of administrational kind) instead of the name neighborhood/hamlet if the state changes? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:03, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess well see how this plays out, but for now it's 2:00 and lunch time. I'll be on later. Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 18:05, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:06, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Dimi, is there any difference of function between a neighborhood an a hamlet? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:06, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read the federal law. There doesn't seem to be any difference in government etc. So I don't care whether it's a hamlet or a neighborhood. :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Barely. Anyway, I was wrong and thought the limit was four :). The problem sort of remains: Newport wasn't "recognized" by Congress as a neighborhood last week. So I propose we now recognize it. Anyone in favor? 18:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * As a neighborhood or a hamlet? Anyway, if it's really important for Marcus to be a hamlet, I don't care, though I don't think there is any difference, so what his reasons are I really don't know... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:43, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care I thought it was you that cared? No well then this discusson was pointless ! I don't care I i like the sound of hamlet only beacuse I like the Play and sounds more quaint. If it's a neighboorhood cool! Marcus Villanova Walden [[Image:Flag of Lovia Small.png|border|20px]] 19:57, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

014. Problem with deputies
Well, the problem is that if a governor quits the deputy governor automatically replaces the role of the governor. At first that doesn't seem to be a problem, but the law is missing a vital phrase according to me. What to do when both the governor AND the deputy governor are absent or not willing to take the job? We can't force people, so we could say the candidate on the third place of the elections (not very practical) or hold new elections (like we did previously in f.e. Oceana when Ben replaced me, he's still in office btw..) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:35, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * New speedy elections for that particular state seem the best solution to me, especially when some time passed since the previous one. 09:02, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I thought so. Anyone a nice phrase for in the law? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:37, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * As they do in New York state is: Govenor - Deputy - Elections! We should reprhase it so that if the deputy is also missing special elections should be held. Marcus Villanova 13:05, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * we could indeed add a sentence to get special elections. i don't think it's urgent, as i cannot imagine both the gov and the dep to resign within 6 (!) months. 06:55, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can, 'cause it happened before that two elected governors for one state (Oceana) became inactive within six months. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:22, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * true, things can happen! Special elections should be the case. Marcus Villanova 19:17, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Possible added phrase
"If both Governor and Deputy Governor are unable to take the role or resign in the role governor. Special elections should be organized in the following week to elect a new Governor and deputy governor." I doubt it's good? But I am I on the right track? Marcus Villanova 19:20, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK, I think :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * IDK? I'm looking for reactions! Marcus Villanova 20:34, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, only the last part could be "new Governor and/or deputy governor". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello other congress men...Hello! Wake up smell the eggs and bacon! So any with the changes it's
 * "If both Govenor and Deputy Govenor are unable to take the role or resign in the role of Govenor, Special elections should be orginized in the following week to elect a new Governor and/or deputy govenor."
 * Any objections? Marcus Villanova 20:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely to happen in a six-month period... 16:39, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't doubt it. Marcus Villanova Music is Life 15:45, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

What if there's a tie?
That's another thing. If there's a tie for Govenor or Deputy should it be know to hold special elections? Any Ideas? Marcus Villanova 20:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pfff.. You could say (if there's a third candidate) that those who voted for another candidate should reconsider their votes, prolong the elections or perhaps someone is willing to give up. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess but either way seems bad. Marcus Villanova 15:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please we need input on this! Marcus Villanova 22:47, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * We do need a phrase covering this indeed. 16:39, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes in a country with only 20 votes per election you never know! Marcus Villanova Music is Life 15:46, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

015. Forbidding low pants in public
I just read the "schoolgids" (guide of my local high school Lyceum Schöndeln in the City Roermond, formerly known as RK BC Schöndeln) and I've found something inspirational. I'll cite page 30: "en wij wensen ook niet met eigen ogen te kunnen vaststellen welke kleur en motief het ondergoed van uw kind heeft." Translation: and we also wish not to be able to determine which color or pattern the underwear your child is wearing has. This so-called "lagebroekenverbod" (low pants prohibition) could also be introduced in the public areas of Lovia. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:21, September 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhhhh simply no beacuse I am a Low pants wearer...so and  Marcus Villanova 20:35, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can imagine that some people might think it's inappropriate. According to the schoolgids "[..] deze wekken erotische gevoelens op [..]" Translation: these excite erotic feelings. :P Because the signature action hasn't quite worked out to stop this rule, they are now trying to also forbid headscarves. Won't be a problem I guess :P In Limburg hardly anyone votes and those who vote vote for the PVV of Geert Wilders (Limburg is the lowest and most right province on the map) :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:11, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a great proposal. Indeed it is indecent and we do not want the girls to excite the boys to much (during school hours) they may find it hard to concentrate ans study less hard? BastardRoyale 09:00, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, it is mostly the other way around: boys looking at girls. And we don't want bored pupils, do we? <Starts a low pants for life anti-anti-anticampaign> SjorskingmaWikistad 13:37, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Again . Srry. Marcus Villanova 20:07, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * the Low Pants prohibition SjorskingmaWikistad 20:09, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like this one is going to have a major support in congress :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:48, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting topic ;). 13:56, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean this is like saying "No green striped turtle necks on Thurasdays in April when it is 56F, and raining." ;]Marcus Villanova 19:30, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Talking about forbidding low pants... SjorskingmaWikistad 15:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I also have the argument "national safety". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Say what? Safety? If your talking about gangs I know all about them. Not that i'm in one, I'm dead scared of them, but one day I lost the remote and watched 20 hours of a show called Gangland on History Channel and learned about Hispanic, Nazi, Crips n' blodss, Devils, Motocyle gangs and Liberal gangs, ANYTHING CRIME and crap. (Yeah I didn't know they exisisted). Getting to my point, what OWTB might be talking about is low pants are able to hide guns and show underpants colors to show gang affiliation (Like if you have red boxers it means you might be in the bloods, Blue-crips, etc.). Also some gangs have chains attched to there pockets to choke people having them lower makes it easier. But then again that is america were lovia so I think crime rate are low. Marcus Villanova 22:55, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * That made me LOL; 'show underpants colors to show gang affiliation'? Apparently, however, the fashion based on the fact that convicts in American prisons used to be refused belts; do we really want our children basing their fashions on convicts'? --Semyon 12:29, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

016. Lovian Dollar
There have been many concepts for a Lovian Dollar (first by Yuri, then by Dimitri and then by Horton11). Of course all inspired on the Oceana korune ;) I think it's time to put the damn thing to work, 'cause there's a lot support for it. To enlarge our independence from the US we really need our own coins (I think our communists will also like to see our own currency). Therefore I ask everyone with ideas for designs to post them here and those having knowledge of economics might also have some remarks.

Come on people, we can do this! --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:07, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Such coins should have figureheads like all the dead Kings (you never put live people on money) Maybe the lovian pine? Also Should we have Paper money...yes also only silver coins...gold and copper are way to expensive to make...In america it take 10cents to make a one cent copper coin...that's just stupid! Marcus Villanova 20:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Queen Beatrix is on the Dutch euros and she still lives (sort of :P) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually read about that how ironic! And I never knew you even had a monarch!?!?! Marcus Villanova 22:57, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would be a great idea, coins with all the kings on them and perhaps a historic building? Also: paper money. Dr. Magnus 20:51, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * The making of a new monetary system would require a much stronger banking system in this nation, and think of the economic chaos that would follow; it would be an unnecessary change. Lovia is perfectly stable economically, and being pinned to the US Dollar is a good thing. If a Lovian Dollar would made, it would quickly free-fall into worthlessness this global economy. We need to stay with what we know will not sink; play it safe. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:55, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I made this on Llamadawiki:, including the pictures. SjorskingmaWikistad 06:49, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sjors, I know the coins you already invented. You seem to have some considerable skills with this. Would you be able to, say, make a coin with one of the monarchs on them? For example, take a pic of our Queen Lucy from the site and make a coin or a bill from it. If you make an example, or a prototype, could you add it here? Dr. Magnus 07:27, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, why are you guys voting in the first chamber? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because they wanna see how much support they can expect when they take it the second. Dr. Magnus 08:07, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I always advocated for an own coin so this got my support!  09:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm rather contra! The coin now is weak we should depreciate our coin, or we will get uncompetitive, and certainly since we are situated close to the us, it will mean a weak economy <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:39, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Lovia has a lot to offer, especially on the area of green energy and other pro-environment stuff. Lovia is a beautiful place to invest. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:11, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Why all the negativity, Johnson? Dr. Magnus 14:17, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes plenty of resourse for a small country, people will see the great opportunity and invest. Marcus Villanova 15:40, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

017. Federal Bureau of Economics and Statistics
I would be glad to start up a federal bureau of economics and statistics, this bureau would arrange some counting stuff, and would be able to give us info on GNP and others. The bureau would be a part of the DEP IAT, feedback? <font color=Navy>JON  THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  12:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay to me :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:11, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeay! As long as we don't do like the Flemish government: thousands of data collected without turning them into policy, collecting the same data twice etc. But I have full trust in you Jon! 14:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of belgium I saw they beat a team for quailifying in 2012 UFEA. anyway Also we need a good system like this! Marcus Villanova 15:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you guys! You all rock! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  16:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

018. Foreign aid policy
I think it is time to reward the LEDC's of present day world with foreign aid, since we are enjoying prosperity, and their inhabitants struggle for a living. I think we should estabilish a special agency of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which has the duty of assigning parts of the total budget to LEDC's. Most important is that we decide on which part we will spend money. Structural aid, given to education would be best in my opinion. SjorskingmaWikistad 15:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets first settle the currency issue, shall we? Also: we may be a prosperous nation in general, but we still have some poor folk. We still have not equally divided the incomes of our people. As a communist, that should be your priority. Dr. Magnus 15:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The poor folk issue is nonsense. Compared to Angola, Sri Lankha or Peru our poor masses are prosperous elite members. You have too see it in perspective. We are not isolationists. Hence, we should provide the LEDC's with a strong economy like ours, by setting up large-scale development projects. To create world equality, not national equality. SjorskingmaWikistad 15:38, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should first try to establish national equality. The next step would be to unite all nations in a communist\socialist coalition in which everybody is equal. Then the world turns red and there is no more poverty. Dr. Magnus 15:44, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm contra. People should make the decision themselves whether they give aid to foreign countries. At the moment foreign aid doesn't work, for the Haiti earthquake a lot of the donated money did not arrive in Haiti and that's not helping the people here nor the people over there. Better set up a national fund. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * First fight corruption in those backwards foreign nations. Boycott their governments if they are corrupt or unlawful. Only then aid is an option. We cannot expect to spend our taxpayers hard earned money on funding the private yet of Mugabe for example. Dr. Magnus 15:48, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

@Magnus, after EC, Wishful thinking. Before America turns left, they first need to turn right in order to see the evil that is indissoluble to nationalism and other rightist streams. @OWTB, that was what I was talking about. SjorskingmaWikistad 15:49, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * true and who proposed this? Also Yuri has already passed some great legislature that helps the poor and is in the process of drawing up some legislature that would make minumum wage 14.00$ and give an employee like a mandatory two weeks off. Marcus Villanova 15:51, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on that legislation. About the foreign aid thing: I'd rather have the 'big three' reformed (IMF, WTO and the World Bank) since nowadays they blackmail nations into opening up their markets. Of course Lovia can't take such an initiative so I support a foreign aid program. @Pierius: Communism always claimed to be an international movement, uniting people regardless of their nationality. 07:02, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

019. death Penalty
sould Lovia reinstate hanging for rape and murder--Owen1983 01:33, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Life in prison is a worse punishment than death, and anyhow, there are a ton of reasons against the death Penalty. I say nay. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 02:11, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

It saves money. Any idea how expensive it is to keep someone locked up for life? And I think it should be given for: But only if there is zero doubt. Dr. Magnus 08:43, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pedophiles
 * Rapists
 * Infanticide
 * High treason
 * I agree with Edward here; death penalty does make crime rates drop but it is the one thing I am against out of principle. 09:23, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Contra! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:00, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about honour killing? If anyone ever does harm to a member of your family you may inflict the same harm upon him, thus setting the record straight and prevent the bastard from harming society any longer. Hammurabi's and eye for an eye. Dr. Magnus 10:05, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Magnus, how did you ever dare to call yourself a communist? The very few cases of honor killing in Lovia will be resolved by court, the sentence being imprisonment. 10:07, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still CONTRA! killing doesn't solve a thing! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fail to detect the smiley, Yuri? I am in favour of life imprisonment instead of death penalty for example for:

However, life imprisonment is expensive so: Prisons have to be sober, and generate more money then they cost the taxpayer. Sentences should be long. Life in prison should mean life in prison, not 30 years with change of parole. Dr. Magnus 10:13, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pedophiles
 * Rapists
 * Infanticide
 * High treason
 * Inmates will do forced labour to pay back to society
 * Inmates will have hard beds, no television and no luxery whatsoever
 * Inmates will be fed simple food and share small cells
 * I don't think rapists should have a Playstation in their cells but I don't agree with a hard line in general either. Rehabilitation should always be the goal. Useful labor can be part of that rehabilitation but 'hard beds, bread and water' not. 10:19, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Maybe I may not speak here but rehabilitation is a politicians word :p) Olaf Engelund 10:28, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * The logic behind the hardline is easy: if the murderer of your wife, the rapist of your daughter, would get away with a lousy sentence of ten or fifteen years because he is rehabilitated, would you not be compelled to take justice into your own hands? I know I would. By punishing the pigs and swines who commit the atrocities in a very hard way the relatives of victims will not have the need to take matters into their own hands. Rehabilitation should not be the main goal, punishment should be. Dr. Magnus 10:31, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, Olaf, you may speak and I have to say I agree with you. Dr. Magnus 10:34, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * NO death! I think if you are fasley prosacusted and are killed but then they find eveidence otherwise what would you do? Marcus Villanova 15:09, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * It would look bad for us, too. We would be one of the few industrialized nations to have the death penalty, along with the US and China. Plus, think about all the potential problems.


 * Wrongly convicted cases. There is never zero doubt. There have been many cases of people killed on a false accusation. Death penalty runs the risk.
 * Hummarabi's eye for eye, tooth for tooth is feeble logic for a modern society.
 * Life in prison is a far worse punishment than the death penalty (longer punishment, same end result).
 * Life in prison can generate more money through prison labor.
 * Isn't that reason enough? Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 18:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * you're right edward. Death penalty is cruel and unneeded. 10:47, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

020. Novosevensk
Novosevensk now has eight inhabitants, so according to the census calculations a population of 1068. Therefore, it needs to be either upgraded to a town, or have part of the population relocated. According to the reform plan, this decision needs to be made by Congress, so please decide. --Semyon 08:56, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd make it a town since I like to stay there.  08:57, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's make it a town :p <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  09:01, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Make it a town; it's a nice place and deserves it. Dr. Magnus 09:12, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I love Novo! Marcus Villanova 16:14, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to the Second Chamber then? Probably an MOTC should do it. --Semyon 12:24, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

021. State election procedures
I regret having agreed with OWTB about retaining the concept of states. In retrospect, it was a big mistake. Not only did it lead to polarization and constant claims of election fraud, states are practically useless. Face it.

Now, from my point of view, there are two options. We can either choose to re-work the state election legislation, so we won't have this bloody fighting in March and April. Or we can abolish states as a level of policy-making; and thus centralize all power within CONGRESS, not with the PM or me.

Considering the lack of support of total centralization (I suppose), I would like to discuss possible reforms of the election procedures. 15:43, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, we should reconsider the voting ballots. Currently, a GOV and a DEP are elected separately. What does this result in? If we have 3 candidates, the candidate with the least votes will retreat (as we have seen in Kings, Sylvania and now Oceana), and his votes will be passed on to another candidate. So, the "most popular candidate" takes the state and his opponent becomes Deputy. In Oceana, it really looks like war.
 * What I propose we do (by the next elections, of course), is change the ballots: candidates must participate two by two. I think (personally) that this would be a good thing. It would indeed strengthen parties, which I have always opposed, but it would at least avoid personal warfare.
 * By the next elections, we must let all citizen SUBSCRIBE before voting. Now, people move, people become citizens in between etc. You all have called it "fraud", and in a way, it is. We must abolish this in the future.
 * We need an election moderator, and it should be someone else than me.
 * We need to shorten the voting period. It seems to be leading to crazy frenzies and vote-changing.


 * Pro Pro Pro, these are all things that our party suggested in the beginning, but we haven't pushed them through, a mistake of ours! But these changes are needed! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  16:12, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. 16:13, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * for mainly the combined Dep and Gov! Marcus Villanova 16:16, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pro, though I would not shorten the voting period since all other measures are already stabilizing enough. Also do note that the legislation should allow two people of different parties to run together. 12:45, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pro all, though I doubt about the combining thing. Let me think it over. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:46, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Same as Mr Ilava. I do support the idea in general. I also think that double ballots would indeed lower the risk of "open war" as we might have experienced in the latest elections. On the other hand, it would increase the power of parties. But then, on the other hand... Take this hypothetical example: Van Ghent and the King would have sided together, and they would have won Sylvania by a large margin, would they not? The same could have applied to, say, Mr Ilava and his "partner", perhaps Mr Latin. More than increasing party power, it would increase the strength of good duos. That sounds like a sound idea! -- 15:32, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Gov and the Deputy should be elected seperately because then you would get some pluralism in the governing of the state. F.e. in Oceana we now have Walden and the CCPL. Two very different parties which surely can bring a moderate policy, which is best, because if you would have Walden won with such a small margin it would surely only worsen the feelings of the conservatives. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:59, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * i get what you're referring to, but there's no such thing as "co-government" with the Deputy. the law clearly reads that the Deputy has no inherent executive power. 14:25, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed and I know, but the Gov should get advise from the Dep and that advise would be more worth when coming from a different point of view (someone from a different party), 'cause then it's "ongezoute kritiek" (does somebody know a good English translation for this one?) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:00, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the standard expression in English is 'unvarnished opinion'.  10:29, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Possible solutions: So any ideas??Marcus Villanova Music is Life 14:59, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Stay the same
 * Seperate races for the postitions
 * Or Running with a running mate (Gov and Dep in one) for this one!

If someone knows which laws need to be adjusted for this, then please adjust them, so we can vote this in de 2nd chamber! --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:45, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

022. For the good order...
This is not a proposal but just a general comment. I've noticed that our MOTC deliver well-funded and very important commentaries on proposals but, to speak frankly, there is one thing I really can't like: those comments are given in the second chamber. I would like to ask all MOTC to read proposals and write amendments when they are in the first chamber. Thanks and please try to pay attention in the future. 16:52, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. On the other hand, to those who move proposals to the 2nd Chamber: make sure you have that majority before moving it. 18:18, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again true. I leave bills in here for a month if you don't read it it's your own fault. Marcus Villanova 22:23, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I made this comments in the light of my 'family law trio'. The remarks are all okay but a little late since the proposals have been open for comments over two months now. 08:00, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

023. Tobacco Law
I know this isn't major and since I saw it in Fed Law today I saw somthing Wrong on section four: Basicly It says Local Police. Which is wrong so I think that should be Federal Police right? Agreed? Okay just ponting that out. Marcus Villanova 13:47, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The term "tobacco" is used for an agricultural product processed from the fresh leaves of plants in the genus Nicotiana. Under "using tobacco" the Lovian government understands: smoking tobacco in the form of cigarettes or cigars, using it in smoking pipes and water pipes, or consuming it in the form of snuff tobacco or chewing tobacco.
 * 2) The use of tobacco is forbidden by the Tobacco Regulations Act of the Federal Law, supported by Congress:
 * 3) In all governmental buildings, including federal properties, state properties and properties of the city, town, neighborhood, or hamlet.
 * 4) For all persons aged under 18 years.
 * 5) In the close environment of persons aged under 12 years.
 * 6) In the close environment of persons aged older than 12 years and under 18 years, unless permission is given by the minor.
 * 7) The use of tobacco is discouraged by the Congress, in all public places, especially those where people consume food and beverages, meaning there is no strict prohibition on the use.
 * 8) Every Lovian person, company, or organization who owns or manages a building, room, or public place has the right to prohibit the use of tobacco within that space, supported by Local Police authorities in case of disobedience.
 * Should be changed yeah. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:01, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah just wanted to point that out, i'll leave it hear for a day or two, again nothing major. Marcus Villanova 17:28, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that we should minimize, if not abolish, the Local Polices. We're small enough to have a single police force. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 18:20, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was already abolished. I think we just forgot to change this one. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:43, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * So we change just change it right no vote? Marcus Villanova 00:06, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:39, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we need a vote for all changes. Just bring it to the Second Chamber, Marc, so we can do a quick vote Martha Van Ghent 07:37, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

024. Secretary Reform Amendment
I propose that the following be added to the Constitution in the form of an amendment.


 * 1) Certain realms of concern in Lovia are to be administrated by Departments.
 * 2) The creation, merging, or disbanding of any Department is to be proposed by the Prime Minister, and must be approved by majority vote in the Second Chamber of Congress.
 * 3) Each Department is to have a Department head, under the title of Secretary.
 * 4) A Secretary may be appointed by the Prime Minister.
 * 5) A Secretary is to be removed from office if any of the following occur:
 * 6) The Secretary resigns,
 * 7) The Secretary is forcibly removed from office by
 * 8) The Prime Minister
 * 9) A majority of Congress,
 * 10) The Secretary does not contribute to its Department for over 2 months, unless an Interim Secretary is named.
 * 11) For an Interim Secretary to be named, he/she must be accepted by at least two of the following:
 * 12) The Prime Minister
 * 13) The Secretary
 * 14) A majority of Congress.
 * 15) An Interim Secretary may not be in office for any more than four months.
 * 16) An Interim Secretary may be replaced by the Prime Minister during the Interim's time in office.
 * 17) If the Secretary does not accept his/her position and meet criteria after his/her re-entering into office, then he/she must resign and be replaced.

It might seem complicated, but it's overdue. The Constitution refers to Secretaries, but never officially describes them. That's a problem. The rules may seem a little complicated, but I think it helps both Secretaries and Prime Ministers, by assuring that Secretaries have to help out in their realm of importance, and that Prime Ministers and Congress can enforce on this law effectively. However, the inclusion of an Interim allows Secretaries to take a break, should that be needed. Edward Hannis 20:50, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very much pro!!!!! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  21:41, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks okay, but I have an objection: "The Secretary does not contribute to its Department for over 2 months, unless an Interim Secretary is named." At the moment the departments are not really used, we simply have too little problems on a small scale. Most departments aren't really in use for several months. Actually I don't really see why we still have them... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:46, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * See OWTB's argument: we have secretaries for the 'order of things' but they are not really needed. I don't see why we should fire someone if he/she doesn't do anything when that isn't needed either.
 * Currently the composition of the government is made by the PM and approved by Congress. I'd keep that need for ratification by Congress.
 * Don't give the PM the power to fire a secretary without Congressional approval. Power should reside with Congress, I don't want the PM to become 'presidentificated'.
 * I do agree we might apply some changes to the system/usage of the secretaries, but not in this form. 09:30, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Secretaries give congressman things to do, nothing more nothing less. Marcus Villanova 20:27, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like I totally missed an obvious solution: the abolishment of Departments. Undoubtedly, a general cooperation is more effective. Secretaries are useless. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:02, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you simplfy to much and limit the size of government them you can't do anything. Marcus Villanova 00:05, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the problem with Secretaries is that a) they're not really necessary, and b) it implies that that person has sole authority over a certain area. If you're not the Secretary of Transportation, then you're not likely to be editing too much about making McCandless's planned highways. Secretaries don't have a clear purpose or authority. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 01:16, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Medve here. 07:08, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

025. Establishment of a Central Bank in Lovia
I would like to propose the establishment of a National Bank of Lovia to help regulate Lovia's economy and eventually introduce a National Currency. I have put up 3 proposals that can be used.

1. Use my Bank of Lovia (and fix it up) as Lovia's National Bank

2. Use the Aventis National Bank, nationalize it ( fix it up) and make it the National Bank

3. Use some parts of the Bank of Lovia (the bank fuctions, the seal, etc.) and combine it with existing Aventis resources.

I personally think option 3 is the best since it can use the the existing Aventis things and also my proposed functions in the national bank to convert it into a true Central Bank. Horton11 14:31, October 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Pfffff...Aventis should be nationalized with all it's other branches. I like the world regulate.Very progressive. Marcus Villanova 14:39, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this: installing a new bank? It would make things easier <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  15:30, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * If Yuri agrees we could take Aventis, cause it already has banks in practically all major places of Lovia. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:41, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, kbc has banks everywhere: De Nationale Bank van Belgie doesn't <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  15:44, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mm.. Then we first have to make clear what the NatBank's functions really are. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:56, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good approach! First of all: it's an emission post of the future lovian money, afterwards we can dicuss international relations and so <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  17:05, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * In my page (Bank of Lovia) i have set out some basic bank functions, like regulating banks and interst rates. Horton11 17:20, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's say it this way, the bank can't really regulate an interest rate, that's not possible, the bank can stimulate it, but it's difficult. However, I'll work out something, or at least I'll try. I'll look at my cursus macro-economics, let me please do this job, I'll need some time but we'll have it worked out well then <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  19:47, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care what the bank is All I know is a national bank is good for the eceomnomy!Marcus Villanova 21:37, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the fact that a national bank issues the billiets and coins is good, because non of you all will ever loan from the NB <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  08:02, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think a bank would be good for the economy (i'm not an economist but my dad is). Andrea Wright 23:32, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In theory, the national bank simply serves as the bank from which the government loans from, in this case should be owned by Congress entirely, and is also directly in the process of minting and coining. I'd also like to note that I do not support the idea of a Lovian Currency. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:54, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of us agree on this new currency and I do not support the idea of a National Bank without a Lovian Currency. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:45, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * A summary: most of us like Lovian currency and Jon is working on a monetary policy for the NB which will be founded out of Aventis with some additions from Horton's creation? 05:19, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't support the currency, I support a NB (Hannisses Idea) and no need to adapt aventis, we need a new bank <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  16:00, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't make head nor tails of what people want. I want both but remember this is really important! So again here is a chart and put your preference on the vote:

This should clarify things and make sure we have support for the second chamber. Marcus Villanova 19:48, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I can't vote but i give full support for both! Maybe i should make an action group to bring support for Lovian currency and a national bank. Horton11 19:56, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah we have them the called PAC's The american version ! We already have four. LOLPAC, LMFPAC, LASUPAC and more. Marcus Villanova 19:58, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * We need a PAC for action and change in Lovia! Horton11 20:02, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there's already LASUPAC (Liberals and Socalists United) but I was thinking of making PPAC (Progressives) Marcus Villanova 20:11, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop making PACS please!
 * We're overPACked ;) 07:38, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * The ones I've created are pretty full proof and cover most of the issues. So far it seems people are for the bank but are split on the currency! Marcus Villanova 15:21, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very the bank if the majority of other people are  the currency. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:28, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dimi - No not horton's idea. and Lovia is a great place to invest. Marcus Villanova 15:44, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

026. Abolishing of states
The reason for this is to simplify Lovian AND they arent needed. Pierlot McCrooke 15:44, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Article 4.2 will be abolsihed completely
 * Article 5 will be deleted
 * The parts of article 8 related to state elections will be deleted.
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:50, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * States arent needed in a small country Pierlot McCrooke 15:51, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor are several people we do have. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:54, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * congress isnt for jokes. I do have a better system then states Pierlot McCrooke 15:56, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean your "regional helpers" system? No, sorry, do not like it. So: Dr. Magnus 16:00, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote:Maybe we should abolish states. States are too much. We could however have a system with Region Helpers. Region Helpers may only advice. Region Helpers may not advise about politics. Region Helpers would be appointed by congress (in samenspraak with region inhabitants) My state replacing Region Helper system would also involve that the RH (Region Helper) would have to ask people about what they want to be done for their region . That is my idea Pierlot McCrooke 16:01, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain yourself: why do you think states are too much? And if the congress appoints the Regional Helpers, where is the democracy in this? Also: isn't the Regional Helper exactly the same thing as a governor? Dr. Magnus 16:10, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * States are too mich because most countries that have a comparable inhabitant count and size to lovia. they dont have 'real' Subdiviaions, adn it think why. because theyre just to small.. BTW the differences between governor and Region Helper, are that the Governor may actually do something, and the Region Helper only may advices to congress Pierlot McCrooke 16:19, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * So the regional helper basically is a dull and worthless position, since he or she is not empowered to do or change anything. I mean: they can give advice but the congress can just as easily ignore that advice, they are not bound to listen. I see no reason to abolish the states and you seem to be the only problem who has a problem with them. Dr. Magnus 16:23, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * A private citizen, a farmer or even a mailman could also give advice to the congress. You and me both aren't part of the congress, still we may voice our opinions, write books and letters. The regional helper you suggest has no function: he or she is no more then a private citizen given a "special title", but who cannot do anything you and I aren't already doing. Dr. Magnus 16:25, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * = Pierlot Marcus Villanova 20:50, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * <font color=Navy>JON  THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  22:02, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I really should make a template out of this quote. I'm tired of saying it. A solution to a nonexistent problem is a problem in itself. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 04:03, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We need some sort of local government: somebody has to take care of streets, local business etc. Martha Van Ghent 07:02, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to propse that for months --- User:Crystalbeastdeck09/Clymene which would include a 5 person state council. Marcus Villanova 19:30, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

027. Media law
It has been a while ago, but Yuri agreed with me that this should be organized. Therefor I propose a very simple system:
 * 1) One National Public Lovian Broadcast
 * 2) Five State Broadcasts (one for each state of course)
 * 3) Room for Commercial Broadcasts (let's limit this to three)

This implies that there are four Lovian broadcasts in entire Lovia (we're talking about both radio and television) and an extra fifth broadcast which varies per state. The NPLB (or whatever we're going to call it) will be comparable to say Nederland 1 in the Netherlands or L1: mostly occupied with news and "actualiteiten", but also room for useless stuff like children's programs. Of course the NPLB should not broadcast any things we don't want to see, this includes teleshopping, belspellen, anything they can take profit of and porn. The Commercial and State Broadcasts should be more free to do what the want. NPLB will be at the responsibility of the congress and the State Broadcasts at the responsibility of the Gov or Dep (depending on whether the Gov is interested in it). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:23, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's hardly any need for five (!!) state broadcasts! I oppose this bill. Martha Van Ghent 07:03, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean national broadcasts, I need one "zender" per state, comparable to one broadcast per gemeente in the Netherlands. (each gemeente has it's own zender, some even several, because of gemeentelijke herindeling, f.e. gem. Roerdalen: OR6 (for the entire gemeente), ORM (for the old gemeente Ambt Montfort) and ORS (for the old gemeente Roerdalen, before Ambt Montfort was added). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:43, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know my opinion on this too. Lovia hasn't been able to produce one well functioning TV broadcast. Then how for God's sake should the state(s) provide six TV channels? 07:44, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very simple. It's called Kabelkrant :) Perhaps I could set up an Oceana channel to prove that it'll work? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:37, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Alright guys, time to put some spirit in it. OBS has proved to be working. Alright, six channels might be too much, but I do believe that states that are willing to set up a channel should be given subsidy from the government. A channel will keep our people informed and will help for states to build up their own identity; most states have been critisized for not having one. A national broadcaster would of course still be very useful, even if it's 60% news (and reruns), 20% politics, 10% weather and 10% sports (I personally dislike sports on a national broadcaster, because it's too expensive and not worth it). A national broadcaster will unite the Lovians and will keep everyone informed, not just the inhabitants of states where there is a local broadcaster. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:41, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the new idea, OBS does a good job. We should build in an opportunity for the states to make their own broadcast system and imbed it in the national broadcasting company. 06:47, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

028. Social security
I'm sorry to say so guys, but even Nýttfrón (!) was further than us with the social security... I propose the following: It's also very useful to indicate that you can't have two payments for one person: so if you're old and you're sick, you'll only get the payment for being old.
 * 1) We should protect and help people when they are sick, unemployed, not able to care for themselves (of children) and old.

Sick people get their wages guaranteed to 75%. Fathers should receive money for each of their children until the age of 18, thereafter they might be eligible for getting money for studying, which the children will receive themselves (until the age of 28 they are eligible for this). With old people I mean to say that older people will get a pension from 65. Unemployment compensation should be minimal in order to keep people searching for jobs, the government should encourage "omscholing" by giving speacial money for studying (which only can be given when the man has already finished a study before). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:33, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we definitely need social security laws. Yuri's been doing some things in that field, I thought. We already have an "OCMW", actually. I agree that we need to pass laws about who receives what. Martha Van Ghent 07:05, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah hasn't yuri done be working on that? Retirment should be 60 (Take that France/US) let people live out there lives and not but working all there lives. Marcus Villanova 19:38, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's stay away from French affairs for the time being. Ce nest pas le moment, la. I also think that this could be best done if pushed forward by the Secretary of Welfare with maybe a few selected helpers, rather than being build in the First Chamber. Things move faster when Congress isn't involved. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 01:35, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree: Lovia is a legislature-centered nation -- our Congress has more power than our Secretaries have. I think it a great idea that We, the People develop a social security system in this very room. 07:42, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, also see a few sections above. Many congressmen agree on abolishing the secretaries as they are useless. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:38, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe we should appoint only a few secretaries after the next elections. We need some, to appoint chairpeople, judges, etc. Some laws mention secretaries and in that case we might need them. But honestly, Lovia doesn't need a Secretary of Tourism and Leisure, does it? Congress should be our one and only REAL power. 09:25, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:29, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need to comprimise. Not all secrataries are needed, Only like 4/5 and the PM should be one of them. Congress has 95% of the power and that has to stop, we need states to have 25% of power, secrataries to have 10% of power and the rest 65%. Marcus Villanova 15:38, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

029. Comment on Voting!!!
Look at all of the proposals that are in the second chamber!!!! We either need to add them to a law book or they need votes. Those have beeen over there for months!!! Marcus Villanova 23:18, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give you that. We do need to either stike down or accept those actions ASAP. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:27, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

030. Reform of the REAC: simplicity and efficiency
I want to reform the REAC. "The Royal Educational Aims Council is a council under the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education, consisting of five educational specialists who decide on the secondary education curriculum, and who can close a school if it does not qualify." Having five members, appointed by five other people, has proven inefficient.

So this is what I want:
 * the ruling monarch no longer appoints anybody, nor sits in the council (he (=me) has nothing to do with this)
 * the Prime Minister, Secretary of CHE and Secretary of Welfare all have one seat; they no longer appoint a person (that was silly: secretaries are already specialists in their own right)
 * the Rector of Blackburn University is also out; he or she only has one seat when higher education is concerned (which will be practically never, but we need a clause like this just in case)

Is this more simple?
 * Yes - only three members, and not five

Is this more efficient?
 * Certainly - no more appointing - the PM, the Sec of CHE and the Sec of Welfare automatically seat in the council

Legally seen
This would be the new section 7 of article 6 of the FedLaw:
 * In case a primary school does not provide the kind of education described in this article, the Secretary of Education or the Royal Educational Aims Council can decide to shut down the school until the service provided does qualify. In the meanwhile the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education must provide education to the pupils of that school, by allowing them instant pro-tempore access to another school.
 * The Royal Educational Aims Council is a council under the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education, consisting of three educational specialists who decide on the secondary education curriculum, and who can close a school (of any level) if it does not qualify with the requirements.
 * The following three persons are members of the council: the Secretary of Culture, Heritage and Education, the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of Welfare as the pupils' and students' welfare watchdog.
 * The Rector of Blackburn University is added to the council as its fourth member only when the council is looking into a matter directly concerned with the higher educational system.

Comments
This looks to me like a quick-and-easy vote. It does not require any big changes. All that's gonna happen, is that there will be no more trouble "appointing" friends/party colleagues to a job you'd like to fulfill yourself. ( lol). And just for kicks, I took out the King too :). 16:18, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:19, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinon -- why...doesn't make things better or worse. Marcus Villanova 21:13, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but I think we need to add a new department: Education or something, could be useful and it could clarify a bit <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  21:21, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a department of education???Marcus Villanova 21:37, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we do, and it's led by Ilava: Department of Culture, Heritage and Education. @Johnson: does this clear up things?
 * @Marcus: it does make things better, and I'll show you why and how:
 * the king no longer has influence on educational programs - that's a step towards democracy
 * the secretaries and all no longer have to appoint members of the REAC. Because they had to, and because there were no (good) candidates, the REAC became inactive. By not having to appoint anybody, and by making the Secretaries themselves seat in the REAC, we no longer have that problem.
 * it's efficient! Very Waldenistic
 * You see? 21:45, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. . I'll give a vote. but what bother me more... there are 10 bills still up for vote in the second chamber. Marcus Villanova 21:50, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:12, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Got my support too. 06:41, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Walden's support too. This is the kind of reform(pjes) we need: cutting on government effort while raising efficient output! Martha Van Ghent 07:35, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Voting
I have the support of Walden, myself, the CCPL and the CPL.nm. Please all vote in 2nd Chamber. 10:28, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

031. Secretary of Finance
Percival notified me of his resignation from his post as secretary due to what he referred to as 'personal reasons and incompetence'. I guess it is my task as PM to appoint a new secretary. In this light I have two questions for Congress: 11:29, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any volunteers or good suggestions? People outside Congress are of course welcome too. (Or perhaps even preferable?)
 * I recall some of you were/are working on a taxation program? This office is an excellent position to work from!


 * Yeah, out of congress. Marcus Villanova 21:10, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * As designer of the taxation system in Clymene, I volunteer. Hopefully I could get 'er done! :P Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:16, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to be the secretary. Horton11 23:40, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a few more days to see whether other candidates pop up. I'll probably let Congress decide on all candidates instead of picking one myself. 06:22, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Just telling: we don't need a finance secretary per se. What we need, is people who can and are willing to work out some tax programs. I believe it would be interesting to downsize the executive government a bit already. Just my - personal - opinion. 07:19, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:05, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or This: Councils. IN many governments. they have councils inside the congress or ruling bodies that make the respective laws about that council. "Council for Defense" would make defense laws...etc.... Thus only people would have to deal with those set of laws and such. Then after that congressional council makes a law passes the councils vote then it can be approved by the entire congress or not. In other words:
 * Council Disscussion/Council Vote (of three or five people, People would have to be in at least two or three)/Council Approval/Congress Discusion/ (If no problem) Vote then approval/ (If there is a problem) either bills is shot down and it goes back to the coucil. Thus taking the load off some people and only have to do minimal things. Marcus Villanova Music is Life 22:24, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * A solution to a nonexistent problem is a problem in itself. I still think that a Secretary, for the time being (maybe changing at the next Congressional vote), is perfectly good for what is necessary. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 01:20, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

032. Motorized Vehicles Tax
I think it's time to tax motorized vehicles. They're a real burden to our environment. That's why I propose a double system:
 * normal, polluting vehicles are taxed more
 * less polluting vehicles, such as hybrids or electric cars, are taxed less - but are still taxed because they do pollute, unlike bikes.

Article 3 of the Environmental Law Book of the Federal Law - the Motorized Vehicle Tax Act
 * 1) The Motorized Vehicles Tax (MVT) is a sales tax applied in the entire Kingdom of Lovia, which is levied at the point of purchase of a motorized vehicle.
 * 2) Motorized vehicles are vehicles whose propulsion is provided by an engine or motor; this includes passenger cars, trucks, buses, motorized bicycles, motorcycles, agricultural motorized vehicles, and all other vehicles propulses by an engine.
 * 3) The Motorized Vehicle Tax is a consumption tax charged at the point of purchase of motorized vehicles.
 * 4) The Motorized Vehicle Tax is quoted exclusively; i.e. it is added to the price at the point of purchase.
 * 5) The seller has the legal duty to inform the buyer of the Motorized Vehicle Tax, that will be included in the price at the point of purchase.
 * 6) Two rates of Motorized Vehicle Tax apply:
 * 7) The Motorized Vehicle Tax 1st Rate (MVT1) applies to all motorized vehicles whose propulsion is provided by an internal combustion engine which uses fossil fuels.
 * 8) The MVT1 Rate is 20%; meaning that to the price of a 1,000 dollar vehicle, 200 dollar Motorized Vehicle Tax is added at the point of purchase, resulting in a 1,200 dollar price.
 * 9) The Motorized Vehicle Tax 2nd Rate (MVT2) applies to all motorized vehicles
 * 10) that make exclusive use of alternative fuels, which includes biodiesel, bioalcohol, chemically stored electricity, hydrogen, non-fossil methane, non-fossil natural gas, vegetable oil, and other biomass sources; or
 * 11) that fall under the category of full electric drive vehicles; or
 * 12) that fall under the category of hybrid electric vehicles with a carbon footprint of less than 5 ton CO2 per year.
 * 13) The MVT2 Rate is 10%; meaning that to the price of a 1,000 dollar vehicle, 100 dollar Motorized Vehicle Tax is added at the point of purchase, resulting in a 1,100 dollar price.
 * 14) The Motorized Vehicle Tax Act exempts all government entities within Lovia that purchase a motorized vehicle to which the MVT2 Rate would normally apply.

So that's it! why is this a good tax? it taxes all motorized vehicles, because driving a car is always worse than riding a bike. It taxes hybrids, electric cars and alternative fuel cars less, because they're way better than fossil fuel vehicles. Also, it gives Lovia its "first real tax" - which is realistic. It's a good tax, because it's balanced and it minds the environment. 18:29, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is fine. I am all pro. -- 19:15, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, any more comments? i'd like to move it to the 2nd within days!! 09:23, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good :). Wouldn't care too much about comments in the First Chamber, Andy. It's a good proposal: well written, clear, environment-friendly and money-making . 10:26, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good yeah :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:52, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * ! Now all we need is Federal and State (Which Edward helped in my state) tax. And maybe tax rebates??Marcus Villanova Music is Life 14:26, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a bad proposal, what about planes? What about boats? These ways of transportations pollute also! Bikes also do (the creation etc, (studies have been made and the results were stunning: a vegetarian in a car is more environmentally friendly then a everything-eater on a bike)) Second comment of Jon: It won't change the attitude of the people (people who bought their car for a necessity and use it at a normal frequency will be taxed as much as those who buy a car for 'fun'). If you tax, tax the service, not the consumption! Make a kilometer (mile)tax. This will change the peoples attitude which will lower the 'funtraffic' and will lower the pollution. Plus it will cause higher income for the state than a one time tax Please rearrange this bill! It isn't good for the auto sector in Lovia. People will quit buying cars, a bad thing for the economy, not only direct (less consumption) but also transport will be lower! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  19:51, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jon: you surprise me. The word 'vehicle' also covers planes and boats. You should know that.
 * And of course it doesn't change attitudes much. But it does in a small way, doesn't it? And at least the state gets money to do something, about the environment, about whatever. "People will quit buying cars" - so they will change their attitude?
 * I -btw- know we need more taxes. Food, mileage, tobacco, etc. This is just one way of doing what we should do. That's the way I see it. I'm no tax expert, but I know sales taxes are one of the best in not-limiting the economy. I think McCandless did a good job with this law. What I think you should do, Jon, is write a law that taxes fossil fuel consumption. On top of this law. Because we need to tax Lovians from the beginning ("the point of purchase" as McCandless called it) on too: make them conscious of them buying something that pollutes more than a bike. 21:41, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still against. I will not allow Lovia to harm it's consumption directly. If we tax, we better levy one on the amount of kilometers per car. That way you charge the actual pollution! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:02, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, taxing kilometers isn't fair. F.e. people from Oceana will have to drive much longer to get to Downtown NC than people from f.e. Long Road. A kilometer tax - this is one of the reasons Geertje became very popular in Limburg - will create a gap between rich and poor with the state borders. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:04, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an economist, but these guys are: "Sales taxes are often seen as good tax systems for economic growth, savings, and investment. Economists at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development studied the effects of various types of taxes on the economic growth of developed nations within the OECD and found that sales taxes are one of the least harmful taxes for growth." 10:07, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah! their are 100 types of economists, some say the state harms :p. And off course sales taxes are good, but not in this case, not for me, because sooner or later their will be another tax, and another. Soon you'll have to pay double. (And besides ever heard of automatic stabilizer? e.g. taxes. They will cause a slower growth! Great, but you have to use the taxes correct <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:15, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sjon, face it: LOVIA HAS NO TAXES. People pay SHIT for all the facilities we offer them. Oh, right, we can't offer them, because WE HAVE NO MONEY. This is a good tax. Lovia needs more taxes. We just need them. At present, Lovia would have less taxes than the Vatican or Antarctica. 10:18, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, lovia has no money, and what's the solution (yours and andies): well we'll just search some. Well that isn't good to me, if you want to tax (which is needed, i'm fully supporting!) start with an income tax, this gives the state a good hold of economy. Tommorow maybe someone will start creating some other funny taxes, grow up, we need this to be coordinated! <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  10:23, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lovia needs trained and experienced economists to write income tax legislation. In the meanwhile, a less trained economist, Andy, has written a sales tax. Sales taxes do not interfere with income taxes, as you know. They are pretty harmless, but have some positive effects. We need a whole bunch of sales/VAT-taxes, and this is a good start. We also need income taxes and I invite you, mr. Economist, to propose one. 10:31, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't fight, people. Should I propose to change the Lovian chamber system to the one of Mäöres? Seems more effective to me and less personal attacks. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:35, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

I wont support this proposal since (1) it will hurt the Lovian economy and (2) it doesn't realize its goal in an optimal way. If you want to avoid pollution and damage to the roads, you should punish the usage of cars in stead of buying/selling them. There are plenty good alternatives: tax on gasoline, toll roads, 'kilometertax', ... I would also support additional taxation on cars that pollute more heavily or people who buy multiple cars. Those are of course only an addition. PS: if the government wants to raise money to fund health care, pensions, education etc. it should tax 'the production of wealth' (wages and labor). All tax systems I know get over 50% of their revenue out of (direct and indirect) taxation of labor. 11:16, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, who the fuck came up with implementing the full tax on the buyer?! How is that going to make producers invest in cleaner cars? They will only make more money by selling dirty ones!! 11:18, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we need to stop "bitching" and start another six point dioluge in this case 5 (CPL, Wadlen, CCPL, LU, Independents) on Taxes. Please lets get our house in order!!! We need to have a understandable disscussion without retarted screaming. Again in this case five point dialouge. We should first
 * Set out what taxes we need (Income, Federal, State...Etc...)
 * How we tax it (How much money and such)
 * Comprimise (Find a inbetween)
 * Write the tax bill
 * Vote
 * Then we have a tax system..
 * But since were so close to elections we could either


 * Do it now and fast
 * or wait until febuary
 * - Marcus Villanova Music is Life 15:57, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm still waiting on the commies' first legal tax proposal. I find it a cheap trick of you fellows to sink this proposal by suddenly coming up with your superior economic knowledge. Rather use it to do something about it yourselves. Propose your income taxes and wage/labor taxes, then. 15:59, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but i think we should have all the taxes propsed at once...remember simplfy?! And in a tax law book. Marcus Villanova Music is Life 16:07, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea marcus, and dimi besides be honest, this is maybe a good law an sich, nevertheless a strange to start with. And it focussed consumption not pollution, that is wrong <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  17:03, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support Andy, but I think Johnson does have a point. We also need to work on income and labor taxes, and soon. I don't agree, though, that that's a reason not to pass this bill. Martha Van Ghent 07:44, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

thanks for siding with me here, Dimitri, and others, but it looks like this ain't gonna work. Can I challenge you guys from the CPL.NM? I challenge you to come with a good over-all tax (income, wage, labor, the choice is yours) before December 31st. if you guys don't, walden will push through its own proposals, counting on the support of independents, liberals and others if it must. we need a good tax policy. and alright, mine wasn't good enough. I'm not a taxidermist (joke) ;) So you guys help us out and Walden'll be all in favor. Do you take the challange? 14:59, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to take the challenge, but please give me/us some time, because I'm in a hard working period <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  16:06, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Don't just give everything to the Commies - again five point diolauge...We comprimise, which since 75% of congress is progressive that won't be a problem! Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:52, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

033. Addition to Sports Act currently in place
Since the Sports law (Finally) passed a few days ago. The current addittions are needed. The teams I'm proposing are fullproof and have been active in many sporting events.
 * 1) The Teams that have been approved and play as National Lovian Teams are:
 * 2) Lovian National Rugby Team and there representative teams:
 * 3) Lovian National Sevens Team
 * 4) Lovian National Rugby 'A' Team
 * 5) and Lovian National U-18 Team

Just to let you all know we don't have a national Soccer team but I plan on working on one. Also to let you know if you don't know about sports So that's that any comments? Marcus Villanova Music is Life 16:44, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rugby is the biggest sport in lovia now
 * A representative team is a team incorporated with the national team
 * Sevens is rugby with only seven people
 * I plan on working on the 'A' and U-18 team
 * The 'A' team is a team of people over 18 but not good enough for the national team
 * and the U-18 stands for under 18, for minors and they are protected in the law we just passed.
 * I'm not in favor of this. The teams are not professional enough, that's one thing. Another thing: no other Lovian seems to be interested in rugby, except for you and one or two others. I just don't think we need three 'national' rugby teams right now. 08:34, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll quote an old PVIR view: Sports is good for your health, but we shouldn't promote it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:39, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. 08:49, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dimi this is the addition to law, without this the current law in pointless. It's not three but one with two branches. Marcus Villanova Music is Life 16:00, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it is. My arguments are these:
 * Rugby is not a sport Lovians care much about; so it should not receive tax money;
 * The rugby teams are not professional enough to be 'official teams'.
 * I like your work on the sports section, though :) 16:02, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

034. Federal Elections are closer than ever!!!
" The next elections are in January 2011. Candidacies start as early as December 2010." - quote from Tutorial for lovian political starters thingy. That's only two weeks away. I'm pretty sure that we need to schedual elections and also this is to tell everyone. Candidancies start only two weeks from now.

@Yuri- with now a large ammount of users maybe 20 congressmen? We have 16 currently and alot of people will run!

Just a friendly reminder! From - Marcus Villanova Music is Life 19:29, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe we need very much Members of the Congress. Any amount close to fourteen or sixteen (like we now have), would be fine, I believe! -- 19:38, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are these mid-term elections or brand new elections? I remember that the last new elections were in February, so I guess these ain't mid-term elections. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:21, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * These are brand new Pierlot McCrooke 08:23, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Regular January elections. Like those in which you, Yuri, Bucu and all the other ones were elected. It's almost a year ago, so it's about time we hold new elections. In my opinion, we're having too many election rounds... but it's my own fault . 08:25, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's okay. (at least.. as long as I'm elected :P) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:31, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be a problem. The six point system (which will now be used for the first time) benefits the following kinds of candidates:
 * a candidate whose party is willing to give him/her all their 3 pointers;
 * an independent candidate to whom all the outsider votes go;
 * Consider yourself an independent outsider-vote candidate  08:37, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:39, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

@Dimi:I hope you didnt forget who many points each type of vote is worth Pierlot McCrooke 08:46, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all in the law, in case I forget. 08:48, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * ! Marcus Villanova Music is Life 16:47, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

035. CCPL's proposed tax system
As the progressives can't agree on their tax system, let's propose mine. What does uncle OWTB think about a fair taxation system. Well, first of all: (don't think point two will go through, but the rest might be useful for you guys) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:36, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Tax sales. F.e. with cars: a not so very healthy car should be made less attractive by pushing a quite big tax on it. Of course better cars are still not very healthy for us, so they also get a tax, though sufficiently less than the other one.
 * Do not tax fuel or kilometers: it's unfair for people who have to travel a lot. We could of course put a maximum tax on it if we do plan to do fuel or kilometers, f.e. $250 per week.
 * 1) Tax abortions, euthanasia, prostitution, pornography, dangerous drugs and gay marriage. (rather clear one I'd say :P if we can't get them to be forbidden, they should at least be made less attractive)
 * 2) A progressive tax system: the strongest arms carry the load as they would say in Limburg.
 * 3) Tax per division: in Limburg we have a system that a natural park visitor automatically pays money for the maintance of the park using entrance money and local pubs/hotels often have 1% or €0,10 "groenheffing". If you like nature you pay for keeping it up. That's the idea.
 * I couldn't agree with you more! Dr. Magnus 18:44, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good attempt, I like the structure of it, I indeed have problems with the second (not unexpected). Also I want to point at something which I'v said before: I'm not a politician that just wants some taxes, I want to change behavior (applied in a case: I do not want to destimulate the buying of cars (since income for the car-sector makes green evolution possible) I want to destimulate pollution (not only by cars). Since it's difficult to tax this we obviously need to take some sideways like taxes the amount of miles driven by a car,... etc). And indeed the general tax should be progressive.
 * Another larger question: who should be taxed? He who uses or he who creates? Because businesses pollute, but not for fun, keep that in mind.They 'pollute' for what consumers ask. Maybe some reaction to this, any opinions? <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  19:27, November 17, 2010 (UTC) (for the two posts :p)
 * I don't think mile taxation is fair. People who have to travel a lot in order to be able to make an acceptable living then would have to pay the price. We should tax those who do not have to travel as much as they do as they do not have to make that amount of miles. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 21:09, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

!!! Again anyone Five Point Diolauge??? Really? Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:32, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree that you could simply use a MPG - Carbon Monoxide system to calculate a tax rate on a vehicle, but a tax on distance covered is not acceptable. If you really want to do something of genre, do what Mexico City does; each car has a number from 1-7, and each day of the week, there is one number that cannot be on the road. However, I believe that taxes on prostitution, pornography, and dangerous drugs are not okay. Outlaw these if anything. Abortions and euthanasia cannot be taxed; they are fundamental rights of a human, and by taxing these you basically tell people they can't do it. As for gay marriage, I really don't think that I need to make any arguing as to why that is, for lack of a better powerful term, redneck uberconservative biblical bull-crap. Gays can marry. Don't tax a marriage. Progressive taxation and the natural park funded on a mandatory basis, I agree with. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 03:27, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

036. Making it impossible to publish books of hate
I propose a change in the Constitution. Namely: should be changed to Perhaps somebody could refresh my bad English sentence to something else. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:36, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Every human being and citizen has the right:
 * 2) Of freedom of thought, meaning and religion.
 * 3) Of equality, by race, religion, political opinion, language, sex, property, birth or other statuses.
 * 1) Every human being and citizen has the right:
 * 2) Of freedom of thought, meaning and religion.
 * 3) Of equality, by race, religion, political opinion, language, sex, property, birth or other statuses.
 * 4) Therefore hate speech in publications are forbidden.
 * (soory for dutch) Ik denk dat dit misbruikt kan worden om antiking publicaties tegen te houden Pierlot McCrooke 15:57, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they can't. This law does not forbid criticism, it forbids racism. You could still say: "The King should be abolished, because blablabla". But you can't publish a book with uitschelden etc. 'cause that's hate speech. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:59, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Just block individual books. Sounds crazy but still. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:44, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * People have the right to publishing utter bull-crap if they please. They have to right to say what they like, just as you have the right to not listen. Let me be clear that this is not the case if it is libel. Libel is not protected under the Constitution. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 22:51, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay but still you could ban the book itself. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 22:53, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are other ways to deal with such publications: burn them to the ground with criticism and counter-publications. I always enjoyed doing that. If something really goes to far we can start trials, demanding a block for the author and/or a ban on the book. 10:22, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Such books shouldn't be on sale, but if you forbid them people will be all the more tempted to read them. We all have common sense enough to understand certain views are just plain wrong; we are taught in school from an early age. America has freedom of speech and you wouldn't believe the filth and perversion of many of their books and novels, for example political books by Mr. David Duke and Samuel Delany, whose novels are filled with disgusting filth. Even organisations such as the NABLA are allowed. We should be careful not to allow too much, we don't need no KKK here or pedophiles openly defending their perverted views, we should outlaw them and discourage them by any means neccesary. Dr. Magnus 14:51, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's against freedom of speech <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  16:37, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Jonhson understands what NAMBLA is Magnus. What it is Johnson is an originization that stands for Gay Love between Boys and men. They often confuse Being born gay and loving small children. The Ku Klux Klan are mentally retarted american drabos. On that case individual books should be banned. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:57, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the right of anyone to speak and hear as they please, so long as it is not harmful. Libel is by no means protected. People have a freedom of speech, and hence hearing it. Unless something is slanderous, it is okay. The US institutes this interpretation. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 01:40, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting Johnson on this one, freedom of speech should be guaranteed as long as it isn't personally insulting. This doesn't mean that for example the author of a racist book can't be punished. This should however happen trough court and be based on existing laws. I simply rely on the Lovian intelligentsia to launch a counter-offensive. 08:39, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

We have to think about our community. Books like these, with reviews/criticism or not, will deter certain groups of people and that ain't what we should want to occur. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:45, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are we to judge if an opinion is not acceptable? A true opinion that does not claim itself as fact is free to be stated and declared. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:06, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

037. Forbidding citizens to vote for themselves
I know that democracies usually allow candidates for elections to vote for themselves, but the situation in Lovia is very different. In an electorate of thousands, one vote does not have a large impact on the outcome; in Lovia, however, where the size of the electorate is only about 20, there is a huge impact. This is even more true with our new 'three-vote' system. It's natural for everyone to give themselves their 'major' vote, which gets them almost halfway to the minimum vote barrier.

Furthermore, if everyone votes for themselves, then we have the nonsensical result that the votes cancel each other out. We might as well not have had that vote at all. --Semyon 13:27, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not agreeing, but the last sentence makes me doubting. I'd say this is a . --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:33, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * This will very likely not get enough support, seeing as it will have to be an Amendment. --Semyon 13:36, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think this should pass. Now, the first vote is practically useless. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:37, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the state elections? This law makes them look silly! In a situation where 2 persons are possible, you have to vote for your direct competitor. Which is silly because he is voting for you! But I understand you mean to apply this only in Fed Elections, still it is silly you help others to get in congress in stead of yourself. What I like to propose is to raise the border: from 6 to 7? <font color=Navy>JON   THE DUDE   <font color=Navy>JOHNSON  14:20, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh.. Then we'd better have one vote, otherwise you always help the competitor.. And of what do you want to raise the border? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:32, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jon: Firstly, the fact that we vote for others at all testifies that we are willing to 'help others get in congress'. Secondly, although I hadn't thought specifically about state elections, the solution is simple; candidates don't vote at all. --Semyon 15:03, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

i agree with Semyon here, though only for federal elections. As John pointed out, state elections are a totally different case. you'll have my vote when this becomes a constitutional bill. 16:42, November 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * It should stay as six but all you can give yourself is a minor vote. Not your major vote. You should still be able to vote for yourself. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 21:32, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that won't make any (significant) difference. --Semyon 21:53, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's grand time this put forth. If it makes Second Chamber, I'll support it big-time. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 23:05, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Contra. Then also if i could contra to the new voting system. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 23:44, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Marcus, please state your opinions instead of just your positions. It's not helpful to just say you disagree. Debate; this is Congress, not a poll. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 01:58, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right :). I must admit I also support this proposal. You have a good point. There's no use abolishing this in state elections; since it really doesn't matter, but it might be important to get the needed minimum of three votes - which sometimes is a problem in the states, but never in Congress. 09:10, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * As i've already stated I think the system of not being able to vote for yourself is stupid. In other countries where it's a two horse race if you couldn't be able to vote for yourself then you probaly wouldn't be able to cast your vote at all. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 16:34, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote. It doesn't matter letting politicians vote for themselves in other countries, because one vote can't make any difference among millions of people. In Lovia, it can. --Semyon 18:11, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

I know I know you have to also imagine one vote equals about 850 votes. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 18:14, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what if people vote for themselves? If you get enough votes you won't have to but if not then I can understand why people vote for themselves. I'd do the same if I needed to. Dr. Magnus 18:18, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * If we can vote for ourselves, it would effectively wipe out the value of a major vote, taken it would be saturated by self-directed votes. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 19:06, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if people choose to vote within their party the results will be silly too. I support nor oppose this, it will have a neglectable effect. Besides, if the votes cancel each other out it doesn't matter people voted for themselves. It is just 'one less vote per person that matters'. People who don't want to vote for themselves can vote for other, and you can vote for yourself with a major vote, a minor vote or a favor vote. There is more dynamic to it than you think... 06:54, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Last comment of (my) day. People will inevitably vote for themselves, and each vote has too much power to be neglected. A major vote won't be so if spent on oneself. And we can't expect everyone to take the high road (as much as socialism may want people to). Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 07:25, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * But think of this: if I decide to spend all my votes on other people - including the major one - you do get advantage from voting for yourself. For the record: I wasn't planning to vote for me unless it means I wont be in Congress. 10:00, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * This advantage would be small in regards to everyone else. If people instantly have the power to make them have good over the bad of others, they'll take it. Ever seen/read The Box/Button, Button? Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 16:57, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, but I consider not being able to vote for yourself to be rather silly. Also, it matters with which vote you vote for yourself too. If you are trying to support a second person or would like someone to become PM it could come in handy to use big votes for that if you are popular enough yourself. Like I said, I will just abstain. 06:33, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit deluded to think that people will truly be objective in their support for themselves. I'm quite certain that self-promotion will overcome desire for others to succeed, even if in their eventual best interest. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 07:45, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have some more faith in mankind Hannis! We ain't all that bad. :P Dr. Magnus 07:55, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * We're politicans right? Doesn't that make us automatically evil?Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 15:33, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Like gingers, politicians have no souls. Dr. Magnus 15:35, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't need a soul, I have a conscience/moral. Voting for yourself or others, the only one who should care is the person casting the vote. 12:29, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

0.38 Privacy regulation
Apart from a telephone service this is one of the things Lovia actually needs. In the past there have been many issues with people their privacy and if we could set up a regulation for this a lot of possible future trouble will be prevented from occuring. Any ideas? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:49, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * You might want to clarify what you're saying; I really don't see what you're saying. Edward Hannis [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 00:17, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

039- Clean Air Act
Lovia should lead the way for being a green eco-country. I propose a Clean Air Act to make Lovia more eco.

1. The reduction of transportation-related emissions by:


 * a. Raising an extra tax on gasoline purchases. (people want to pay less, so they would buy less gas)


 * b. Giving tax discounts to buyers of small economical vehicles, or other electric, hybrid or eco cars.

2. A general reduction of carbon emmissions by:


 * a. encourging the setup of green companies in Lovia


 * b. encouraging construction of greener houses and buildings

3. Having a national carbon emissions limit for companies and individual household.


 * a. People/companies who exceed their emissions quota will pay an additional amount of money for every ton of CO<sub style="line-height: 1em; ">2.

Since this program not only punishes, but also rewards those meeting green regulations, it should be a successful program.

Horton11 01:16, November 29, 2010 (UTC)