Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of the Lovian Congress, the federal legislative branch. Unlike in other nations, the lower chamber serves as a room for debating and compromising, and the higher Second Chamber is where Members of the Congress vote bills that have passed through the First Chamber.

All inhabitants are allowed entry to the Congress, though only Members of the Congress have the right to actively participate.

Postal service
Because of above i also want to propose the following: Article ?: With addition of one letter. In case a postal district contains one neighborhood, this letter is assigned to a street. In case a postal district contains more neighborhoods, the letter represents a neighborhood
 * 1) The Lovian Postal service is a organization sorting mails, regulating the postal code system, and the post seals (this is a direct translation of postzegel)
 * 2) The lovian postal service uses this postal code system:
 * 1:Sylvania:
 * 1000: Noble city (Downtown)
 * 1010:South Noble City
 * 1020:North Noble City
 * 1030: West Noble City
 * 1040:East Noble City
 * 1050:Train Village
 * 1051:Clave Rock
 * 1060:Nicholasville
 * 2:Oceana
 * 2000:Hurbanova (downtown)
 * 2001: East Hills
 * 2010: Millstreet
 * 2020:Drake Town
 * 3:Kings
 * 3000:Newhaven downtown
 * 3010 Abby Springs
 * 3020: Under abby:Excludng Malipa
 * 3030:Malipa
 * 4:Clymene
 * 4000:Sofasi downtown:
 * 4001:Adoha
 * 4010:Hightech Valley
 * 5:Seven
 * 5000:Kinley
 * 1) Post seals from the Lovian Postal service contain a stylized portrait of the incumbent monarch
 * 2) In case there is no monarch, a image of the flag is used
 * 3) The postal service is administered by the Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade
 * 4) There is a postal council, whihc contains all mayors.
 * 5) Post has to contain a post seal to be free
 * 6) post is sorted automatically

Talk
Any comments? Pierlot McCrooke 08:11, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, look at the previous topic. 10:22, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already saw that. That is why i am proposing this Pierlot McCrooke 10:40, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Pierlot McCrooke, it looks as if you were inspired by the Belgian postal code system. Suppose in this virtual world, the largest city becomes a small hamlet (earthquake, innondation, migration of citizens), the system would prove not to be workable anymore. In my opinion, we should stick to the hexacode. --Lars Washington 10:43, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel the hexacode is too easy too use for criminals. I also have to say: the hexacodes are illegal used. Why? There was never a vote on them in congress, they where just voered in'(sorry for my bad english) undemocratically. That is what i want to change Pierlot McCrooke 10:47, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlegal? Well let's vote for it and make it legal, if that makes you happy, but that does not mean I agree with your concern. --Lars Washington 10:50, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont really get you Pierlot McCrooke 10:53, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I im not in favor to change the existing postal code, hexacode, that's all. --Lars Washington 14:45, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with the old system anyway. But I can see

Pierlot has done quite some thinking on this matter. Since you, Pierlot, like to "merge towns" so much as you do, why not "merge" the two postal code systems into a combination of both? That's really your thing after all! Dr. Magnus 18:04, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is too much. By the way do you support this? THis is similar too TNT post in the netherlands Pierlot McCrooke 19:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

What is the opinion of yuri? Pierlot McCrooke 10:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Lowering the power of the King/PM
This is the first part of a bigger reform plan. This part of the plan is to be treated as one proposal. The goal of this part is to give more power to the Congress and to neutralize the positions of King and PM.

Separation of Powers
Currently the Lovian Constitution states in article 1.A.3. that:
 * Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy.

I would like to make this more concrete by adding the following sentence:


 * Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons.

Mid-term and Crisis Elections
One of the fields were the King and PM have too much power (compared to Congress, were the real sovereignty lies) are the organization of 'special elections'. The mid-term elections for example can only be organized on initiative of the PM. And there are no regulations at all about what to do when most of Congress is inactive. Therefore I suggest the following:


 * Changing Art.8.1.4: Mid-term elections can be organized if proposed in Congress and approved by a Congressial majority. (instead of "by the PM").
 * Adding an Art.8.1.5: New federal elections have to be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (31 days); or when the Prime Minister steps down.

This would also require a description of when the PM has to step down. I will handle that in the following part of this proposal.

Federal Secretaries and Impeachment
To make Congress even stronger against the King and PM, we have to build in an impeachment procedure that allows Congress to fire the entire government:


 * Adding an Art.8.2.3.1: When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of distrust. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority (50%), both government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.
 * Adding an Art.8.2.3.2: When the Prime Minister and his government resign, Congress is dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.

Furthermore, Congress should be able to question Federal Secretaries and other executives of the government. Also, the power of the King and PM in the composition of the government is too big. Therefore I would make these two changes:


 * Rewriting Art.8.2.1: ''The monarch and PM will chose which MOTC will become Secretaries of a certain Department. Their proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress.
 * Rewriting Art.8.2.2: ''Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. When they have lost their trust in the questioned person, they can vote a motion of distrust against him/her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority (50%), he/she has to resign and a replacement has to be proposed by the PM and approved by Congress.

Talk
My support Pierlot McCrooke 10:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I here and there change your wordchoice and such? 10:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, and filter out the spelling mistakes and all that.  10:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will, thanks. 10:35, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't mind that I took a good cut in both our respective powers?  10:36, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't Yuri. In fact, I always wanted this to happen. Democratization after demographic growth. 10:38, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad we can agree in these matters. That are already three votes, still six to go I guess?! 10:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why dissolve Congress if the Gov resigns? Is this really necessary; can't we figure out a more easy way? Elections can take up to two months! 10:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * They also do that in NL. BUt i dont know a easier way Pierlot McCrooke 10:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, they do it in most democracies. In fact this is the only 'correct' way to do so. Another option would be for the King to compose a new government with the person who got second most votes in the original elections. This all is however an emergency scenario of which I doubt it will happen. 10:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine with me. Has the Dutch Queen already accepted Balkenende's resignation, btw? 11:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * No Pierlot McCrooke 11:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is she still on ski holiday in Austria? 11:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know Pierlot McCrooke 11:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

The Waldeners hereby give their full support to this proposal cluster. 12:59, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support it too. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:10, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Abolishing the undemocratic local regulations
This is the second plan of above mentioned reform plan. This part is also to be treated as a whole and aims at introducing more transparency and democracy in legal regulations.

Because legal regulations made on local levels (states, towns, etc.) are undemocratic, we should abolish them. Only Congress should be able to declare a law. This would imply the following changes to the Constitution:


 * Art. 4.2/4.3/4.4 : removing the regulations concerning judicial structures on these levels; leaving only Congress in power to declare a law.
 * Deleting Article 5, that regulates the devision of judicial power between national (Congress) and local level(s).
 * Art. 6.1: replacing 'Federal or State Law' by just 'Federal Law'.
 * Art. 6.3: removing the regulations concerning the creation of a State Law.

Furthermore, I would like to make it possible for anyone to propose a law. Currently, only MOTC can do so. This would require the following changes:


 * Art. 6.2.1: One or more Members of the Congress write a motion --> Anyone can write a motion and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)
 * Art. 7.3.1: One or more Members of the Congress write an amendment --> Anyone can write an amendment and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)

Also, the judicial institutions on state level should be abolished. There are - luckily - not too many trials in Lovia and Supreme Court can manage them all. Therefor I would like to suggest that we also alter the following:


 * Art. 9.1: All judicial cases are to be handled by the Supreme Court (instead of the endless list of what they can do and what is for State Court).
 * The deletion of Article 10, which names the fields of authority for the State Courts.

Talk
My support, but a new role for the states has to be found Pierlot McCrooke 10:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but because that is a more delicate matter it should be addressed afterwards. 10:31, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

New version (Pierlot)
THis revision above removes some removals by Yuri because otherwise states would be usless

I would like to make it possible for anyone to propose a law. Currently, only MOTC can do so. This would require the following changes:


 * Art. 6.2.1: One or more Members of the Congress write a motion --> Anyone can write a motion and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)
 * Art. 7.3.1: One or more Members of the Congress write an amendment --> Anyone can write an amendment and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)

Also, the judicial institutions on state level should be abolished. There are - luckily - not too many trials in Lovia and Supreme Court can manage them all. Therefor I would like to suggest that we also alter the following:

Pierlot McCrooke 10:49, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Art. 9.1: All judicial cases are to be handled by the Supreme Court (instead of the endless list of what they can do and what is for State Court).
 * The deletion of Article 10, which names the fields of authority for the State Courts.
 * If I have to choose between undemocratic states or useless states, I will pick the latter. Also, in my proposal, states aren't useless but only taken away their judicial powers. They can still enact the regulation. 14:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe making the the second chamber the state chamber should fix the issue. But until this issue is fixed, states have to be undemocratical Pierlot McCrooke 18:31, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Changes in the citizenship regulations
This is the final part of the reform plan and is rather small. I believe its intention is clear.

Because the regulations concerning citizenship are rather obscure (inhabitant for four days; 50 usefull edits), I would like to propose the following changes:

3.1. You can become a Lovian citizen if
 * 1. You are active for at least four days
 * 2. You have made at least 50 edits

Only those two conditions have been altered, all other regulations would still stand (like giving name and gender).

Talk
I hope that all these references and changes are clear. It wasn't easy to write. If you should have any questions, just ask me or try to have a look at the Constitution. 10:34, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * My support Pierlot McCrooke 10:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine not yet. I had a more concrete proposal in mind. I'll try to write it down as well, okay? 11:24, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. This is the part of the reform I spent least time on, as the result clearly shows. 11:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very pleased with the idea of a faster regulation for citizens. I support the other proposals too. Well done! Harold Freeman 11:40, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

New version (Dimitri)
My more concrete version, including a residence section:

Article 3 – The Lovian citizenship
 * 1) Every inhabitant of Lovia has the right to become a Lovian citizen.
 * 2) An inhabitant of Lovia is every person who has a domicile (permanent residence) within Lovia.
 * 3) There are requirements to become a Lovian citizen:
 * 4) He or she must reside in Lovia.
 * 5) He or she must have made at least 50 edits.
 * 6) Acts of vandalism or related edits are not to be included in this count.
 * 7) He or she must truthfully provide the following personal information:
 * 8) His or her official name that consists of at least one given name and a surname.
 * 9) His or her biological sex.
 * 10) His or her domicile (permanent residence); this being a full adress of a residence in a Lovian city or town.
 * 11) The rights of a citizen are described in Article 2.
 * 12) One's citizenship may be taken away as a punishment in a trial.

What about this version? 11:42, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds alright to me. 11:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * We (WLP) back it. 13:02, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is good. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:13, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Again a new version (Pierlot)
Article 3 – The Lovian citizenship Pierlot McCrooke 11:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Every inhabitant of Lovia has the right to become a Lovian citizen.
 * 2) An inhabitant of Lovia is every person who has a domicile (permanent residence) on a wiki-style map within Lovia.
 * 3) There are requirements to become a Lovian citizen:
 * 4) He or she must reside in Lovia.
 * 5) He or she must have made at 50 edits.
 * 6) Acts of vandalism or related edits are not to be included in this count.
 * 7) He or she must truthfully provide the following personal information:
 * 8) His or her official name that consists of at least one given name and a surname.
 * 9) His or her biological sex.
 * 10) His or her domicile (permanent residence); this being a full adress of a residence in a Lovian city or town.
 * 11) The rights of a citizen are described in Article 2.
 * 12) One's citizenship may be taken away as a punishment in a trial. This needs to be voted upon by Congress, because this may be controversial
 * The issue with the judicial branch is exactly that they solve things the Congress can't do... 11:50, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Citizen right take-offs are controversial, so i think this should be voted by Ciongress Pierlot McCrooke 11:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they are controversial: but votes can be controversial too! The deal is: a judge judges the case, and his judgement should be considered fair as it is within the Constitutional limits. 12:00, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the traditional view on this: judges are indeed capable of making a 'correct' decision. If you deserve a block then the loss of citizen can be added too. 12:02, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Amendment bill: Article 1B
I wish to rewrite the Constitutional Article 1B (about the monarchy).

Current state
Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by a king or queen.
 * 1) The ruling monarch is the person who inherited the throne. This can be the king or the queen.
 * 2) The partner of the ruling monarch is the one who married the person who inherited the throne and
 * 3) A new king or queen:
 * 4) The monarch of Lovia is the first-born child of the previous ruling monarch.
 * 5) The person the most related to the former king will become ruling monarch.
 * 6) * If the former monarch didn’t have any children.
 * 7) * If the first-born child refuses to become king or queen.
 * 8) The heir to the throne has to sign the constitution before his or her inauguration.
 * 9) The king or queen and his or her partner are automatically Members of the Congress.
 * 10) The king and queen have the right to become a federal secretary and/or a member of one or more state governments and/or a member of a city or town government.
 * 11) The ruling monarch receives means by the Department of Finance to compensate his or her expenses. The Secretary of Finance has the right to turn down means if the expenses are not of any general use or if the monarch has spent too much on unnecessary items.
 * 12) The ruling monarch can also:
 * 13) * Grant a civilian an extra living as a gift.
 * 14) * Grant a company or store the right to be an official Royal Warrant.
 * 15) Every member of the Royal family is equal to normal citizens.

Proposed state
Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch.
 * 1) The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble).
 * 2) The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen).
 * 3) The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. She is a member of the royal family, but does not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia.
 * 4) The person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is most directly related in terms of kinship to the previous ruling monarch.
 * 5) The heir to the throne will sign the Constitution upon his coronation.
 * 6) The ruling monarch is Member of the Congress by Right, meaning he is automatically granted a seat in the Lovian Congress.
 * 7) The ruling monarch is thus not permitted to participate in elections to Congress.
 * 8) The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finances, in which case the Secretary of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress.
 * 9) With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extralegal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution.

Changes
This is what I did:
 * 1) I formalized the article's word use and brought some uniformity to the use of terms as "ruling monarch" and "king or queen".
 * 2) I simplified the paragraph about inheriting the throne.
 * 3) The queen formally was an automatic MOTC as well (!). This I deleted.
 * 4) I deleted the sentence that the king and queen could become secretary and such: that sentence was not needed. As long as there is no sentence saying they cannot do so, they can.
 * 5) I deleted the sentence about the king getting money from the Finance Department. Instead, I added a sentence saying the king could ask for money, and that the Congress would have to agree with what the Finance Secretary decided to do with it.
 * 6) I deleted the king's right to:
 * 7) * Give extra residences to some citizens (very undemocratic)
 * 8) * Do Royal Warrants (silly system)
 * 9) I reformed the last sentence about the other members of the royal family. Qua content, nothing changes here.

Talk
This is what I earlier promised to do. So here it is. 08:42, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pro Pierlot McCrooke 10:42, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Do you think we can start moving the whole load to the 2nd Chamber? 11:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Group it according to content, and let's start voting. Will you notify all MOTCs? 11:27, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Either you can do it now/this evening/tomorrow or I will do it this weekend. 11:46, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll perhaps do it tomorrow. In ten minutes' time I'm off to Ghent. 13:19, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with these changes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing
I can't find it back in the law, but shouldn't someone who commited a crime elsewhere (in another wikination/site) be guaranteed that he won't be punished for that in Lovia? In the past we've seen - mainly other wikinations - doing this and it's not a good way of dealing with things. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:56, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well noticed. We should indeed try to get something of this kind into law. 08:53, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. In March - that's tomorrow - the elections in Mäöres end and we'll also try to get it in the law there too. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:56, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. Do feel free to propose the same here in Lovia . If you don't feel like it, I'll look into it myself next week. 08:58, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about people who committed crimes against humanity or internationally wanted terrorists? Just kidding, good idea! 08:59, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Therefore we have outchangingsfor bearings treaties (=uitwisselingsverdragen) ;) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with OuWTB's idea. 13:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, got my support too. Harold Freeman 14:29, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Belgium could once arrest, trial and sentence anyone we was accused of crimes against humanity. We had to drop this law though because of pressure from the international community (mainly big nations that made war). Too bad. Perhaps Lovia can become this open too? 09:04, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Naa, would get too political. 09:05, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I liked the idea. But I understand that it is too far removed from the no-nonsense style of the Lovian law. 09:08, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, someone who committed a severe crime on another wikia should have this on his/her (strafregister) for a couple of months, just to remind him/her of his/her wrongdoing elsewhere and because other users should at least be informed. --Lars Washington 09:24, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

So, are we going to vote this one? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:44, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Preface
The present situation:
 * There is only one highway (Highway 1) in use
 * Lovia being an archipelago of small islands, the construction of new highways is rather difficult
 * The highways are numbered, starting at one; and so far only Highway 1 is in use

Highway plan
The 2010 Highway Plan consists of these items:
 * In the United States, odd numbers generally indicate a north-south route, and even numbers mean an east-west route. We could adopt this system in Lovia as well.
 * In that case, the Highway 1 will be divided into smaller portions:
 * The section Hurbanova-Noble City will become the new Highway 2
 * The section Noble City-Train Village will remain Highway 1, and this road will be extended both north and south
 * The section Train Village-Newhaven will become the new Highway 4, and will also be extended west
 * A north-south oriented highway across Kings will be constructed, and be named Highway 3
 * A north-south oriented highway across Asian Island will be constructed, and be named Highway 5
 * In a later phase, a north-south oriented highway from the Emerald Highlands (Clave Rock and East Hills) to Hurbanova would be constructed, and be named Highway 7

Highway overview
The proposed system:
 * Highway 1 new.png Highway 1: Blue Sea shore - Train Village - Noble City - southern tip of Sylvania
 * Highway 2 new.png Highway 2: Hurbanova - Noble City
 * Highway 3 new.png Highway 3: northern tip of Kings - Newhaven
 * Highway 4 new.png Highway 4: Clave Rock - Train Village - Connection Bridge - Newhaven
 * Highway 5 new.png Highway 5: Adoha - Clymene State Airport - Sofasi
 * Highway 7 new.png Highway 7: Clave Rock - East Hills - Hurbanova

Construction plan

 * Phase 1: Re-organization of Highway 1 (April 2010)
 * Phase 2: Construction of primary connections (April 2010 - September 2010)
 * Full construction Highway 3
 * Full construction Highway 5
 * Phase 3: Construction of secondary connections (October 2010 - January 2011)
 * Construction Highway 1 between the Blue Sea shore and Train Village
 * Construction Highway 1 between the Noble City and the southern tip of Sylvania
 * Construction Highway 4 between Clave Rock and Train Village
 * Phase 4: Construction of the Emeralds-Hurbanova connection (December 2010 - March 2011)
 * Construction Highway 7 between Clave Rock, East Hills and Hurbanova

Talk
In my judgment, a federal secretary can arrange things like these by himself. i do however wish to involve Congress in the process: if democratically agreed on, our plan stands a lot stronger. i would like all members of the congress to think well of the plan i present you here today. It might finally be a solution to a highway "system" that was hard to alter. with this proposal, our nation will be able to construct new highways in the future without having to change the numbering system, or without having irregularities all over. 07:35, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could there as well be a highway to East Hills? From Hurbanova to the north, entlang the ocean and then to the Emeralds where East Hills is located. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:46, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, that would be good :). Is it good if i put it on the construction plan around december 2010? 07:50, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this plan. Pierlot McCrooke 07:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:00, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for your support fellows  08:00, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have mine as well. I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to tackle old issues! 09:19, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my support. Edward Hannis  [[File:CogHammer.gif]] 16:55, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW: you can already vote in Second Chamber Pierlot McCrooke 16:58, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Voting options amendment bill
Constitution, Article 6.2.4:
 * Every Member of the Congress can vote (pro, contra or abstention).

Should be:
 * Every Member of the Congress can vote (pro, contra, neutral, back to first chamber, merge proposal with another or abstention).
 * Pro means that you support the proposal, contra means that you oppose it, neutral is a mix of pro and contra (for using when you support some points but also oppose some points), abstention means no opinion, back to first chamber means that you support the proposal going back to the First Chamber for some adjustments and Merge with another proposal means that you support merging the proposal with another.

I think that is good. Pierlot McCrooke 18:42, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Probably better

 * Every Member of the Congress can vote (pro, contra, neutral, back to first chamber, ).
 * Pro means that you support the proposal, contra means that you oppose it, neutral is a mix of pro and contra (for using when you support some points but also oppose some points)and back to first chamber means that you support the proposal going back to the First Chamber for some adjustments
 * Only if a Majority is for back to first chamber, the proposal may be moved back to First Chamber
 * A Neutral vote is not counted in the uitslag (i have this from wikipedia)
 * If a Proposal is defeated, it may be sent back WITHOUT voting

Other suggestions? Pierlot McCrooke 11:05, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Other option
Removing all voting options and make it so that the maker of the proposal can make the voting options: I was thinking of this solution. MOTC can then vote every option a maker of a proposal offers. This would require deleting voting templates Pierlot McCrooke 15:14, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Talk
I think this would do good for democracy Pierlot McCrooke 08:36, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't believe it's necessary. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your proposal then? I at least want neutral back Pierlot McCrooke 08:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are neutral you can use abstention and say you're neutral. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:39, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstention means: really no opinion. Neutral means: a mix of contra and pro Pierlot McCrooke 08:41, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. There's no difference in the outcome of the vote then. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:42, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It really DOES matter. Abstention and Neutral arent the same Pierlot McCrooke 08:44, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll never use both the templates, so actually I don't care. I would be in favor of adding "samþykkt" and "á móti" as templates though. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:45, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the translation of that? Pierlot McCrooke 08:47, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * "pro" and "contra". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:42, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Pierlot, I wish to point that "abstention" isn't just "no opinion". According to Wiktionary: So, if one chooses to abstain, he can do that for a whole set of reasons; not just because he/she has no opinion. Just wanted to make that clear. 09:17, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstention = The act of abstaining; a holding aloof
 * To abstain = (3) Deliberately refrain from casting one's vote at a meeting where one is present
 * The lovian vot eoption means no opinion Pierlot McCrooke 09:19, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, shut it. You know it doesn't. The law says nothing about what it means, so it means what the dictionaries say it means. 09:20, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should making a law defining the voting options. Because it isnt clear Pierlot McCrooke 09:21, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * All other MOTCs seem to find it clear... 09:26, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know but the difference between Abstention and Neutral werent very clear in my proposal so i added it Pierlot McCrooke 09:30, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a somewhat different proposal. It deletes abstention and replaces it by Neutral Pierlot McCrooke 10:54, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem stays the same. 10:57, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What for problem? Pierlot McCrooke 10:57, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not solving anything, only making it more complex, and less concise. 10:59, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be complex, but i might solve it abit Pierlot McCrooke 10:59, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, i am not so good in writing lawtexts Pierlot McCrooke 11:06, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Still too complicated. And if a majority votes against a proposal it already is clear, that it's better to send it back to the 1st chamber. Holding a vote for sending it back is bureaucracy and only takes too much time. Also, it will result in the following: one can no longer propose something that has been proposed in the 1st chamber, as there is no majority vote for sending it back and therefore it will become a mess. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:17, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why dont you write a alternative then? Pierlot McCrooke 11:19, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'm fine with the current regulations. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:22, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue ("one can no longer propose...") that you pointed out here, is indeed important. Thanks for doing that :) 12:32, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I have added something. BTW:The back to first chamber voting option is for people who arent against A proposal, but still want it rewritten Pierlot McCrooke 11:23, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we should also have a template for those who still doubt whether they want it rewritten and vote against, for those who still doubt whether they want it rewritten and vote in favor and for those who still doubt whether they want it rewritten and vote neutral/abstention, and so on. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:43, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not needed, people who want to vote that, can vote against, or neutral Pierlot McCrooke 11:48, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Voting policy
You may not have noticed, but at Libertas, incidentally, I discovered there has been some tampering with my voting. This is not the first time this kind of vandalism occurs. Isn't there a possibility to avoid this, by organizing a fair voting system? It is possible, cause it has been done here in the passed with the polls. --Lars Washington 15:39, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen it too. I think Lovia has quite a fair voting system, isn't it? This is for sure: there have never been such irrevgularities as the Libertan parliament currently has. Is there something you'd like to propose here, Lars, or are you fine with the Lovian situation? 15:52, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, everything is very, fine. Lovia is the friendliest place in town --Lars Washington 15:57, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope things get better in Libertas as well. 15:59, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish I could do something about it, to help change this ㅎ_ㅎing situation. --Lars Washington 16:11, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I REALLY hope wikistad will get closed. Wikstad constantly leads to fights Pierlot McCrooke 16:21, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is that, McCrooke? Because you were kicked off the site? Need I remind you that you where the cause of the majority of conflicts over there? ;) Dr. Magnus 16:49, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Evryone did. Even wiki staff wanted to close the website Pierlot McCrooke 17:12, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Government support for welfare campaigns
In the light of mr. Donia's milk campaign I (Medvedev) would like to make the following proposal:

Bill (Federal Law)
Article 13 - Health and Charity Campaigns Act
 * 1) Any non-profit campaign that is privately organized, putting effort in the realization of one or more of the topics listed below, shall be able to apply for financial and/or infrastructural support at the Department of Welfare.
 * 2) Campaigns eligible for government support are:
 * 3) Campaigns which counteract, try to prevent or raise awareness about abusive consumption of food, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and/or narcotics.
 * 4) Campaigns which counteract, try to prevent or raise awareness about violence, hatred, and/or discrimination.
 * 5) Campaigns which promote or give advice about a healthy lifestyle.
 * 6) Campaigns which raise support, either by means of financial contributions or other means, for charitable causes in and outside Lovia.
 * 7) Campaigns which promote or give advice about a proper education.
 * 8) Campaigns which promote or give advice about the use of contraceptives.
 * 9) Any campaign applying for government support shall make use of factual information in support of its goal.

Original list (to illustrate some possible campaigns)
Campaigns against unhealthy consumption (abusive alcoholism, smoking, ...) Campaigns against violence and hatred (racism, domestic violence, ...) Campaigns that promote a healthy lifestyle (exercise, eating fish, drinking milk, ...) Campaigns to raise support for good causes (third world, fourth world, ...) Campaigns that promote a good education Campaigns that promote contraceptives

Talk
The text between brackets are only examples and not to be taken up in the law. They can however be put on the Department of Welfare article as a guideline for future campaigners. It would be up to the Secretary of Welfare to judge which campaign is suited and which isn't. 08:30, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I do some rewriting? 08:48, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Spelling, grammar, adding option, ... do as you please!  08:49, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). I also want to rework those brackets "". 08:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see they're only examples Good.  08:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * So that people have an idea what they are voting for. 08:54, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this? I hope you didn't think I edited it too much (which I probably did).  09:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * A real top-shelf bill! 09:41, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would't wait too long: just move it to the 2nd Chamber  13:18, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ich bin für. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:27, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving it in about five minutes. 14:41, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Forbidding Yuri to demolish Pines
I want to forbid Yuri to demolish Pines. Otherwise we have housing problems, becase many places are full Pierlot McCrooke 17:32, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I sense a little paradox here, I'm turning this uninhabited neighborhood (only one citizen and a camping) into a natural park because there are too many houses unoccupied elsewhere. There is no shortage of houses, Pierlot, there are too many . Half of Newhaven is not in use, I'm trying to fix that. 18:24, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe changign it in a restaurant and shopping neighborhood and demolish that too large shopping center? Pierlot McCrooke 18:27, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * The shopping center is indeed to big. I'll tear that down in the future too, or at least take of a floor. Again, I do feel that a neighborhood with one inhabitant is just a spillover. There is plenty of space left in Newhaven ánd everywhere else. 18:30, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just demolish that shopping center Pierlot McCrooke 18:31, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there would still be too many space left. Perhaps there should be a law that declares cities to have either two thirds of their space occupied or simplifications have to be made. 18:35, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pierlot McCrooke 18:36, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't support such a law either, it was only hypothetical. But the (non-)occupation of buildings is a real problem in Lovia, one that is severely neglected. 18:38, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish
Should we perhaps consider writing a rules and customs book for Congress, as they have in America? Some people just don't seem to get that this place is not a kindergarten. Pierlot, if you don't like something, then you must have a reasonable argument with that person. Starting campaigns and childish bills in Congress is of nu use. 19:05, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am supporting this. I think i have done too much. But I didnt like yuris changes Pierlot McCrooke 19:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still no reason to panic. You should learn how to react properly, Pierlot. 19:07, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Definition of "neighborhood"
At the moment the law doesn't define the word "neighborhood". (see also ). Therefore I believe we should put something in the law. I propose the following (to be re-written to better/more formal English as this is just an outlet of thoughts): --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:33, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * A neighborhood is a part of a town or city.
 * A neighborhood should at least have one residential spot (otherwise there can't be the minimum of 121 inhabitants).
 * (Are we still doing the Chairman thing?)
 * other ideas?
 * i support the getting rid of undemocratic chairmen. if i understand it well, it sort of means you "reign" over a portion of the city, and you decide what the streetnames will be and who can build where. if so, i support the abolishment of this function. And i do support the things you propose here oos wes. 08:14, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I share Mr. McCandless's opinion in this matter. -- 18:12, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, or we should say a chairman would "collect ideas from the people in the neighborhood" and bring them to the mayor. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:30, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Motion of no confidence: Pierlot McCrooke
Wants to leave the wiki, almost resigned, vandalism. Any supporters? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:30, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Little problem: Congress cannot fire its members. Under the Third Amendment a motion of distrust was built in to fire Federal Secretaries (which he is not) or the entire government (which he is not). 15:34, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! "Motion of no confidence" - I love this strange English you use, McCrooke! I am laughing so hard I almost shit myself! Dr. Magnus 15:34, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there's a big problem in the law I guess. Up to the fourth amendment I'd say! :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:36, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what you were elected for. 15:38, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * For what? :O --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:38, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * To amend and write the law? You know, the kind of thing I and Yuri do. 15:41, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh that. Well, I try to have some input in the 1st chamber here (see the section above), but I can't write the laws in such good English as you can :( --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:43, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * A stub is a good start . I gladly rewrite bills, but I can't just "suck 'm out of my thumb" ;) 15:44, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah ok, that's right :P Need to go now -> FOOD. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:45, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * MOTC are elected and can only quit themselves. Otherwise the majority could simply throw the opposition out; there is no sane country in the world that allows such practices. I do see the beauty of the Belgian government voting away all VB (nationalist party) members out of the parliament but that wouldn't be very democratic, would it? 16:26, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would surely like the idea of LB members voting out all left MOTC ;) A good solution would be: voting out that MOTC, but replacing it with a member of the same party. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:10, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * that wouldn't work in a country as ours, where we barely have non-motc party members. 17:13, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we'd give another member a vote which counts twice è. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:16, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Try Marcus Villanova or Percival Galahad. Dr. Magnus 17:15, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Language reform (Constitutional amendment)
Parentheses suck. In our Constitution, Article 11.4, we find the following line:
 * The national language is (American) English.

I very much dislike it, for it is unclear and ambiguous. That is why I want to propose a rewriting of the entire Article 11 (which is a small one), and together with that a more extended legislation regarding language.

Current state
Article 11 – National symbols
 * 1) The federal capital of Lovia is Noble City, Sylvania.
 * 2) The national symbol of Lovia is a white pine tree.
 * 3) The national colors are: navy, red and white.
 * 4) The national language is (American) English.

Proposed state
Article 11 – National symbols and language
 * 1) The federal capital of Lovia is Noble City, Sylvania.
 * 2) The national symbol of Lovia is the white pine tree.
 * 3) The national colors of Lovia are navy blue, red and white.
 * 4) The national flag of Lovia has a navy blue hoist, a red fly and the white pine tree as badge.
 * 5) The national language is English.
 * 6) The variety of English spoken and written by the Lovians is Lovian English. Lovian English is defined as a variety of American English, sharing its orthography and grammar, and most of its pronunciation and vocabulary, supplemented with lexical and grammatical features that are generally recognized as Lovian and that are understandable to all Lovians.
 * 7) The Lovian authorities of all levels shall make use of standardized Lovian English in all official documents.
 * 8) The language Oceana is recognized as a regional minority language, and shall thus be protected from extinction.
 * 9) The language may publicly be used by its speakers, under the condition that an accurate English translation shall be provided within a reasonable time.
 * 10) The Narasha 'Oshenna Rát or Oceana Language Council is a federal institution under the Department of Culture, Heritage and Education that shall preserve the language through literary, cultural and lexicographical projects. The Narasha 'Oshenna Rát is entitled to regulate and promote the use of Oceana language.

Changes
What changes?
 * I incorporated the Flag of Lovia within our Constitution.
 * I changed some phrases into clear and proper English.
 * I made "English" our national language.
 * I made "Lovian English" the "variety of English spoken and written within Lovia"; and I defined it as "a variety of American English" sharing most of its characteristics, supplemented with our own features.
 * Standardized Lovian English is the language to be used by all authorities.
 * I (finally) recognized Oceana (language) as a regional minority language, that is protected from extinction.

Talk
Opinions please, dearest MOTCs? 08:49, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but perhaps you could also make the Narasha 'Oshenna Rát the official regulation of Oceana? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:57, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I then institutionalize it under the Department of CHE? 08:58, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oui, tu peux. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:00, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, I'll add that then. 09:01, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like that? 09:07, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dshacueme! --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:15, April 3, 2010 (UTC) (=thanks!)
 * I suppose that's an Oceanan word for naranja?  09:23, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it quite has the same load yeah :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:28, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

I am contra, because the fact the not by the users here spoken oceana will be made official. Making it offical as a regional language seems a bit useless Pierlot McCrooke 09:04, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pierlot, the Constitution is about LOVIA, not WIKINATION. 09:23, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that the boundaries between 'standardized Lovian English' and other variants (like American English with Dutch influences) are very vague. It is nice to have it in the law but I can't think of using it in any way. We wont sack people because they use British English in official articles I hope? 09:26, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about: English (American grammar and some Lovian expressions) in articles and official documents/requests. On any other occasion you can speak whatever you want but you must provide a translation if asked for. Now isn't that neat? 09:30, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple: we will try to use American English consistently (in articles and official things), in which we allow "Lovian" (that includes Dutch influences) characteristics which most of us understand (= "standardized"). Of course, we won't "sack" anybody! But as has been done since the beginning, we will probably correct "colour" into "color" or "boot" into "trunk". 09:31, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay for me. I guess we will have to be understanding towards each other. I love that!  09:32, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw: Anybody cán speak his own variety. There's no law prohibiting that, so they can. On articles however, we will use Americo-Lovian English. That means: World Standard English (WSE) + Americanisms (grammar, phonology, lexicon) + Lovianisms (mostly lexicon). 09:33, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine indeed. Bucurestean 11:49, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree. We might be expanding the law, we áre simplifying its consequences: no more doubt about what language(s) to use.. 17:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'll move it to the Second Chamber. 06:40, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed state
Article 11 – National symbols and language
 * 1) The federal capital of Lovia is Noble City, Sylvania.
 * 2) The national symbol of Lovia is the white pine tree.
 * 3) The national colors of Lovia are navy blue, red and white.
 * 4) The national flag of Lovia has a navy blue hoist, a red fly and the white pine tree as badge.
 * 5) The national language is English.
 * 6) The variety of English spoken and written by the Lovians is Lovian English. Lovian English is defined as a variety of American English, sharing its orthography and grammar, and most of its pronunciation and vocabulary, supplemented with lexical and grammatical features that are generally recognized as Lovian and that are understandable to all Lovians.
 * 7) The Lovian authorities of all levels shall make use of standardized Lovian English in all official documents..

Talk
--O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:35, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is about time to recognize the work OWTB has done. He wrote an entire lexicography and grammar guide: that's more than we have for Lovian English. The articles about Oceana are top-notch. We MUST recognize this. 09:37, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sö I ceuld spøk mi øwn vaarajity? Just kidding; I don't support the recognition of any minority language (why Oceana and not the pseudo-Swedish jabbering of me?) but I really don't give a narranja either!  09:38, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think recognzing Oceana is useless, because it is not spoken by the users here, and it requires too much usless work for DOCHE Pierlot McCrooke 09:38, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require much work: the work has already been done! 09:39, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Yuri: Because it is fully documented and your babbling is not  09:39, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what would happen if I created a (complex) form of English influenced by Russian and Swedish. Would it be recognized too if I wrote lots of articles about it? 09:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not against the language Oceana itslef, but against its future useless recongniztion as a official language . You could better give OWTB a article award Pierlot McCrooke 09:42, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Pierlot: It will NOT be recognized as an official language. What the bill does say, is that we will recognize it as a regional minority language . Even if you don't want it to be recognized, you have to admit it already is a regional minority language. So why not recognize it?
 * @Yuri: Sure. One other condition though, it must fit in our history. 09:46, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of citizen rights
I propose to expand the citizen rights to goats. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:51, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Bucurestean 15:59, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now thát's why we need an impeachment procedure for MOTCs... ;) 16:09, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it was meant to make clear that Lovia doesn't have any laws protecting animals, but I guess you guys didn't see that :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:33, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

State Elections
Article 8.3 from the Constitution concerning State Elections has not been respected. It describes that every two years new State Elections should be organized. The Elections of this year had been originally planned for January, as King Dimitri I announced in November and December. However, they have never been held. Now, a couple of months later, I would like to ask for clarification if possible. Bucurestean 07:25, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * In agreement with the Prime Minister, it was informally decided to hold elections after the second reform proposal by Medvedev was accepted. It has not been accepted, as you know. I personally think we should take a second shot a reforming the state legislature, but that's not my call. Holding the elections is not my call either, I think, and I hope Medvedev will be able to establish an agreement. 07:32, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which were the articles the second reform proposal was about? Perhaps I can make something of it then. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:01, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Investments in Oceana
Because there is no State board yet, we'll have to try it this way. The economy in Oceana is growing again, Lovia is not in crisis anymore (see TNCT and Hurbanova Novine). Especially the State of Oceana seems to be an upcoming economic power. We should not ignore the demand and create new jobs rightaway. It would not only be in favor of the local population but also of the neighboring places like Train Village where the unemployment starts to rise (with the planned construction of Highway 7, Hurbanova will be linked to Train Village).

That's why I would like to ask the government to start investing in Oceana. It might be growing, it still is a relative poor state where the mining business still is an important source of income. As an inhabitant of Hurbanova and East Hills, I can tell you that there still are too many people without a job. There are not many opportunities for students with high education; they all go to Noble City to earn some money over there. Only the elder people stay in Oceana.

Here comes my proposal: please consider investments in the South Western part of the country. Create new jobs, make Hurbanova more attractive for large companies, start renovating the buildings, do something for the tourism. 7 millions of dollars is needed for the renovation of the Hurbanovan buildings, 1,2 million for East Hills. Also I would like to consider a touristic hamlet just south of Noble City, in the far north eastern corner of the State. A second Adoha, but accessible to most of the Lovians. It will keep the tourists away from the Oceana Reef, a coral reef which is momentarily one of the most visited places in Oceana. It would be wrong not to stop the process of damaging it.

Furthermore the Shkola Hurbanovni should get more financial support by the government. Help expand it, so not only language courses will be given. For the youth it would be a great advantage to study in their own home town, with the hope for a bright future. Once more high educated personnel can be found in Hurbanova, the region will have a pull factor for companies. --Bucurestean 09:01, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess that's a yes Bucurestean 10:47, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Job creation by the government, you sure got my attention! I'm working on a plan to nationalize the energy sector, perhaps some new plants and a research center could be build in Oceana? The demand on higher educated people would grow which keeps the young ones from searching their fortune in NC. 15:52, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:14, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Mid-term elections
Since the last sequence of reviews to our Constitution, Congress has to approve any mid-term elections. There have been some changes in the political landscape recently (people leaving Congress, party merging and altering) and also some new users have joined. Mid-term elections would be nice to sort some things out. If you don't support these elections, please vote contra in the Second Chamber but don't leave comments here. The proposed dates are:


 * candidatures: May 1 - May 16
 * voting: May 17 - May 31
 * inauguration: June 1

This is an urgent proposal so please prepare to vote already today/tomorrow! 06:06, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh right. That's early . But sounds good to me. I shall begin making posters to announce the elections and so. 06:14, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this way we evade the examination period which comes in handy for a lot of our users, including you and me. Second, I also like the opining date of the candidatures.  06:16, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. 06:18, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I don't really see the use of new elections, I have no big objections. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:17, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand: it's not a big necessity indeed. But think of it this way: if we don't do it now, we'll have to do it in the Summer of later, when things are usually very quiet. If we do it now, the new active users can get a proper chance. Think of Marcus. Adding some four new members would be a good thing for Congress I think :) 07:21, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but who is Marcus? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:23, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose Mr. Marcus Villanova is meant. I by the way support this mid-term election plan. -- 09:37, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh him :P Guess I only knew his surname :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:03, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move this to the second chamber now. I apologize for the rush, I should have made this proposal a while ago but the belgian politicians give me a hard time; I'm supposed to write a paper on the institutional crisis, lol.  10:51, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's a good one . Good luck Medve! How many thousands of pages should your paper be? ;) 11:02, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, that would be too easy! They want to make it very difficult on us: we are ought to write an 'inspiring and original paper that covers the entire subject - without ever becoming subjective - in about 600 words'. How the hell is that even possible!! 11:06, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6-0-0 ? ? ? That's hardly a text! 11:09, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is exactly that limitation which makes the entire task impossible. 11:13, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bon chance. 11:19, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Six-point system
The current voting system allows a strong impact of the so-called popularity bias which causes distorted election results. Basically, we all have three votes and often our third vote goes to someone we like instead of someone we deem a 'serious' PM candidate. To solve this issue we should give our three votes three different values (1, 2 and 3 points). We now can order our votes and the one with the most points (and not necessarily votes) gets to be PM. More concrete:


 * Major Vote: 3 points
 * Minor Vote: 2 points
 * Favor Vote: 1 point

These votes have to be spread over more candidates as it was also in the current system. To be elected a minimum of 6 points is needed (corresponds with the personal input). In special cases we follow a 'priority rule': 1 Major vote is to be considered as higher points then (1) 3 Favor votes, (2) 1 Minor Vote and one Favor Vote. Analogue to this a Minor vote is to considered less important then 2 Favor votes.

The revisions that are to be made to the Constitution are all part of Article 8 (Elections). The current state:

''8.3.3. Every citizen can vote for three candidates. It’s not possible to vote contra. Voting for less then three candidates is allowed.'' ''8.3.4. The candidates with the most votes, and at least three, will become Members of the Congress. But there is a limit of Members of the Congress. This number is decided by the previous Prime Minister, and should always be between 5 and 30.'' 8.3.5. The candidate with the most votes will become Prime Minister.

This should be altered to:

''8.3.3. Every citizen has three votes: a major vote, a minor vote and one favor vote. These are worth one, two and three points respectively. Voting for less then three candidates is allowed but it is not possible to cast multiple votes for one candidate.'' ''8.3.4. The candidates with the most points, and at least six, will become Members of the Congress. But there is a limit of Members of the Congress. This number is decided by the previous Prime Minister, and should always be between 5 and 30. When several candidates have the same amount of points, priority is given to votes of the higher rank.'' ''8.3.5. The candidate with the most points will become Prime Minister. When several candidates have the same amount of points, priority is given to votes of the higher rank.'' Jon Johnson 14:02, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good proposal, especially for those popular chaps who don't want to become PM. 14:04, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a formality before we continue: technically, you (Mr. Johnson) are not allowed to propose bills in Congress. Could we say that Yuri Medvedev proposed this, whereas you wrote it? You know, just to be legally in order. 14:22, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked and it seems my (darn good) proposal didn't make it back then? Truly a shame... If we are going to do this with eye for the technical detail: I proposed (posted) this law but the proposal is Johnson's. 14:56, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, if everything is legally then I'm pleased too, and besides it is Medvedev who has searched and changed the articles where needed. Jon Johnson 16:00, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a formality, you're the real genius! 16:20, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this makes it much too complex.. I like the simplicity of the current system. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:27, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * i think it's quite good. This is very feasible. 16:26, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * It does make things slightly more complicated but the effect you get in return is a conditio sine qua non. How else are we to balance the results of popularity bias? 06:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what if people use their major vote for their friends and their small one for their best political match? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:05, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that would be a deliberate choice, in other words: then you prefer your friend as PM in stead of your best political match. The 6PS would still be most representative. 07:20, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, but not practacly. Ever wondered how a communist could have become PM twice in this country ;) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:23, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that the people who voted for me have confidence in my capabilities. Also, communists can come to power in a democratic way (India, Nepal, Moldavia, Cyprus, Israel, ...) especially 'modern' ones like me. And if it makes you feel more comfortable, I don't plan on succeeding myself a second time. 13:24, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm comfortable with having you as PM, but I only want to say that this system isn't going to work (or at least make the current system better). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:43, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I just add that the system I worked out, is far more democratic the the current one, and I think that it that fact we should remember! Jon Johnson 10:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as there is no objective study material on this case, there are no facts. And because it's hard to study this there'll never be facts. In my opinion this system is going to demolish our democracy. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:55, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it numbers you want? Or graphs? Because there is PLENTY of serious in-depth material on this. 13:24, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are indeed many studies which have pointed out that 'my system' is far more democratic and inherent correct! Jon Johnson 13:25, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

You got my support. A bit risky, but it might prove very successful. 15:44, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Allotment Act
There seems to be a need for defined 'building-suited' areas. I would like to construct this in cooperation of the entire Congress and will upload a map soon. The first map will have the zones that are currently occupied by buildings highlighted. I would then like to hear from you which zones we can add. Key: 09:46, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * red = occupied by buildings
 * orange = designated for building
 * green = PEA (protected environmental area)
 * Isn't that a strange name? 09:49, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it meant 'a plot of land, a lot'. It sounds nice to me but perhaps native speakers can find a better name? About the map: this is an initial idea but please help me fill the whole thing up.  10:04, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * --> dictionary result, it does appear to have multiple meaning. 10:06, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you forgot some hamlets and stuff. nice start off though. Perhaps we could ask the king for his version? he seems to know the islands as if he's god. 10:06, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I fix Oceana? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:07, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I just did this in about two minutes so the map sucks. I will create a decent version when we are finished.  10:10, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed Oceana :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:12, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if some MOTC would express there desires on where to have PEA's first. Afterwards we can see what is left to color orange.I would like an PEA in the southern part of Kings. 10:14, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the green areas on this map, the Truth Island, Discovery islands, part of Kings indeed maybe and some areas in Oceana. Perhaps also Plemming Forest. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:17, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we add a green buffer zone to the capital? Not directly next to it but a mile or two away. Harold Freeman 15:13, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about a PEA in the highlands and next to the Oceana Reef? Bucurestean 08:11, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Jao, that might be a good idea. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:41, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

State Elections (2)
Article 8.3 from the Constitution concerning State Elections has not been respected as it describes that every two years new State Elections should be organized. The Elections of this year had been originally planned for January, as King Dimitri I announced in November and December. However, they have never been held. I tried to launch a new discussion on this subject a month ago. Dimitri said the following: ''In agreement with the Prime Minister, it was informally decided to hold elections after the second reform proposal by Medvedev was accepted. It has not been accepted, as you know. I personally think we should take a second shot a reforming the state legislature, but that's not my call. Holding the elections is not my call either, I think, and I hope Medvedev will be able to establish an agreement. HRH King Dimitri I 07:32, April 16, 2010 (UTC)''

Informal decisions should not be above our Lovian Constitution. However, the LD wants to let the Congress know that it still wants to cooperate if it comes to writing a State Reform. If we don't succeed in getting an agreement, in our opinion, we should not fear organizing new State Elections. Bucurestean 08:24, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to hold the elections any longer, even if the state reform has not yet been accepted, 'cause it's rather sure that the governours will stay. Maybe their role will become less, but they will still stay. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:41, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * See the whole proposal before commenting :P Bucurestean 09:13, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think we'll get any reactions? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:15, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nahh, only if we undertake some action ehem :P Bucurestean 09:18, May 13, 2010 (UTC) (msn)
 * Hahhaa :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:19, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Possibilities for state reform
Activity and democratic states cannot be combined as we have too less users. Three layers (Federal, State, Mayor) would be simply too much. I propose these possibilities:
 * 1) Use the Oceana Model (see Oceana State Law) for all current states, that means that Governors become quite dictatorial in their state because they take over many responsibilities of the Mayors.
 * 2) * Town destroying like in Train Village after every change of leadership will probably be avoided (Mayors are even more dictatorial than governors, so you could say that it would be an improvement if Mayors and Governors will share their responsibilities).
 * 3) * More chance that the State will do actively its work, than with a democratic council or whatsoever.
 * 4) * Mayors lose some power and finally a clear boundary between State and Local governments will be drawn.
 * 5) * A governor is chosen, mayors aren't, so in some kind of way, the people get more to say.
 * 6) Create democratic states, with a (chosen) council, and dismiss current Mayors.
 * 7) * More decentralization in Lovia.
 * 8) * Two layers instead of three layers, works better, less bureaucracy.
 * 9) ** Currently all states, except for Sylvania, correspond in their boundaries to only one commune which can be seen quite useless as there would be a double government for the same territory. With this proposal, this would not be the case.
 * 10) Get rid of the States, with exception for Oceana to maintain the Oceana language as an official language.
 * 11) * More centralization in Lovia.
 * 12) * Oceana becomes an autonomous region.

--Bucurestean 08:55, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mayors have a semi-ceremonial function. Governors take over almost all their responsibilities.
 * Mayors disappear. Democratic states, with a council and governor with all responsibilities.
 * States disappear, except for Oceana. Mayors (or local governments) and the Congress get both more influence, with the possibility to make the local layer (Mayor/local government) democratic.
 * --Bucurestean 09:00, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * OW.. See my ideas below too :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:00, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * You support point 1. if I'm right? --Bucurestean 09:04, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and because I'm egotrot I'd also support point 3 if then is made clear what Oceana can do then. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:09, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also like 1 and 3 because 2 sounds a bit impossible as our Congress and Government are already pretty inactive. Bucurestean 09:10, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahhaa :P Btw, we've broken the right block of inactivity now :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:11, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. ;) Bucurestean 09:12, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

OWTB on "Why we should keep States?"
(this is a revision of the Yuri plan above)

State Laws
There is absolutely no reason to give up our State Laws. The only reasons to do that which were brought forth were that they were undemocratic. But guess what, democracy itself is undemocratic as can be. But for those who remain in the vision of undemocraticness, I'd say we create a sort of "check system" in which the congress can vote to stop articles in State Laws if they are contradictive to the Federal Law or making a tyrannic state. Why keep the state law? Simply for several reasons: --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:59, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Official symbols, seals, flags of states etc have to be made official (> put in laws), but a Federal LAw or constitution isn't really a place for the "state anthem of Oceana" or the "official motto of Sylvania".
 * 2) Some State Laws are already quite extensive, like the ones of Sylvania and Oceana, and it's non-sense to throw everything and all the useful regulations away.
 * 3) The State departments like State Monument Service etc would no longer have any legal base to exist and putting all Oceana monuments on the national list would quite "debalance" it and taking away their monument state would quite be a hell for these buildings..
 * 4) (probably the most important one) Everybody still remembers why I decided to no longer "fight for Oceana's rights"? Because Dimitri said that the states already have enough freedom, like state courts, STATE LAWS etc . If there is any idiot demolishing our state laws, I would immediately propose a autonome state for Oceana.

Proposing laws
Here I agree with Yuri, so:

Furthermore, I would like to make it possible for anyone to propose a law. Currently, only MOTC can do so. This would require the following changes: --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:59, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Art. 6.2.1: One or more Members of the Congress write a motion --> Anyone can write a motion and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)
 * Art. 7.3.1: One or more Members of the Congress write an amendment --> Anyone can write an amendment and propose it in Congress (First Chamber)

State courts
A difficult one for me, cause they have shown their uselessness in the past. But I believe that if the states create their own state laws, there is need for local courts. At the moment they are rather useless, but in the future they might make some sense. For now I'd say: All judicial cases are to be handled by the Supreme Court. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:59, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bucurestean 09:10, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Also
May I also note there actually is nothing wrong with the current system, 'cause there have never been given concrete examples of tyranny. :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:13, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mayors are even more dictatorial... Bucurestean 09:14, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * F.e. TV ;) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:15, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
I have the feeling that nobody thinks that possibility 2, democratic states, will work. In that case, as Yuri said on the talk page, there would only be two choices:
 * 1 - More power to the Governors, less to the Mayors
 * 3 - All power to the Mayors, abolish the States (with Oceana as exception)

--Bucurestean 18:10, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Kind of selective, eh guys? What about these:
 * Total unitarian state.
 * Total abolishment of the state (of course including Oceana, duh).
 * Bicameral system in Congress, with one state-elected chamber based on the Gubernatorial elections.
 * Total confederalization (bad idea).
 * 19:12, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the third one, how would you implement that? Jon Johnson 19:21, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * You should ask your Chairman; he knows all about those plans . In short:
 * A federally elected chamber.
 * A chamber with two members from each state: the Governor and the Deputy Governor. They govern their states executively + they decide in Congress. State laws can be abolished.
 * No need of powerful mayors or anything of the kind.
 * But as I said, ask Medvedev. He's better in this :) 19:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd go for two members from each state we quite get the same problem as in England with the rotten borough system (our rotten boroughs will be Seven and Sofasi), will others, notably Sylvania, would be undersjietingelsj.. (ondervertegenwoordigd) in the chamber. Total abolishment of states is fucking up everything. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:34, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is more as in the US. In the House of Repr. you get representative representation. So California has 54 members and Delaware three or so. To give small states a chance, there's the Senate, in which every state has two votes. I find it quite good. Of course, I am not sure whether our tiny demographics can handle it. 19:37, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear not as Sofasi is quite dead.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:39, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear not as Sofasi is quite dead.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:39, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

OWTB's second idea
Well, if you guys go for abolishing state law I'd say that's stupid. What I tend to like more is replace the current "unlimited" state law with a restrictive state law which can describe official symbols, which have been accepted by the congress. So, one state law for all states, but then with sections for all states in which symbols, anthems, languages, towns/hamlets, all that shit gets registrated. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:39, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words: abolishment of state laws. State legislation can just as well be described in national laws. 19:45, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

To remind y'all
If one of us would like to approve some proposal, he should need 8 out of 10 votes, which is quite impossible nowadays. So... if we really want to change the current system, we all want that, we should try it another way. --Bucurestean 19:55, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we'd better start with state court seperately, 'cause there's nobody who wants to keep them. And also allowing normal citizens to propose law could be a voted for. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:07, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * And the most important part? :P Bucurestean 20:08, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess so :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:11, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * It starts to sound like a crisis to me Bucurestean 20:12, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pfff.. The government'll fall before votings for the mid-term elections are even opened. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:17, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem's that the government can't fall because there is no government. So we'll have to wait until next year, when we'll make the same mistakes. Bucurestean 20:18, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, 'cause I'm no longer going to run for motc :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:20, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but I was generally speaking. Party politics would be the solution. Bucurestean 20:23, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't work, not enough active users. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:24, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

If congress would vote a motion to impeach the pm, government would fall and new elections would be held Jon Johnson 20:22, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Na, wouldn't get through. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:23, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is possible Jon Johnson 20:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the non-LD'ers will boycot it. --`O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:26, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * But we have no reason at all to start such a motion against the First Lady, because he didn't do something bad orso. But this country becomes ungovernable (what's the word?) Bucurestean 20:26, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the same! We need to reform now more then ever! But at the moment where are in a deadlock, what one likes, is what another don't want. Maybe (like I said on Dimi's page) we ought to create an additional page to discuss this topic Jon Johnson 20:29, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would someone accept someone else's idea if there is nothing to win in his eyes, because it would be worthless? 80% (8 out of 10 members) is simply impossible. Bucurestean 20:33, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a majority 66% would do or even 50 %, in the current system 7 out of 10 pro votes isn't enough, that's scandalous Jon Johnson 20:35, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hopeless. I could better give up my seat. Bucurestean 20:38, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe wait until the new elections, if I get elected I'm supporting a 66% majority Jon Johnson 20:41, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * But we also need a 75% majority to approve that, and as already half of the Congress is gone... Bucurestean 20:42, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Only Hannis is missing and we may leave his vote out of the calculations, I suppose Jon Johnson 20:44, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * No we can't as he's not officially out of Congress :'( Bucurestean 20:45, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted Yuri and he says that it already happened some time ago when Donia was still officially in congress, but he was absent for a longer time, his absence wasn't calculated Jon Johnson 20:49, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's unconstitutional --Bucurestean 20:50, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is because I live in Belgium, our voting's are unconstitutional since more years :p Jon Johnson 20:54, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * (I know i am not allowed, but because Jon also edits here illegally) Currently we have to do it unconstutionally, because of our megalomane system, which goes out of a system there are 30 users here Pierlot McCrooke 20:53, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I speak freely in First Chamber Jon Johnson 20:55, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

A whole bunch of things often proposed separately
There is a lot of discussion going on about how and why to reform. Here are some basic ideas that I read/heard all over the place and could form a good proposal when combined:
 * Keeping the states for now and even merging their powers with the ones of the local government (simplification of the current bureaucracy)
 * Expanding the powers of the state by giving them authority over what can be build where (fixes the problem of castles popping up all over Lovia) - perhaps with the exception of national parks??
 * Having both state and federal elections held at the same date (simplification again)
 * The division between the federal and state level is to be made according to the USA model (to guarantee the autonomy)
 * Every citizen is allowed to write a law and propose it in Congress (obviously more democratic)
 * Introducing the referendum to make it possible for citizens to overrule a government decision (currently one can only start a trial?!)
 * Lowering the needed votes for a Constitutional amendment from 3/4 to 2/3 (more workable for the MOTC)

These aren't 'my proposals' I just collected them in my head over the past month. I'm sure I've picked some ideas of OWTB, Dimitri, Jon, ... Do you MOTC think this can work? I know it doesn't abolish states/state law but it surely makes things more democratic. If you can't abolish the states you should try to balance things, right? 06:56, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the suggested topics, maybe this needs to be worked out, and be sure to negotiate with all the parties, as you will know to get this through we need a 75%majority and that is quite a lot. Good piece of thinking Jon Johnson 07:28, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I can get most MOTC behind this, it is a moderate and realistic proposal. 07:35, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, I hope you have checked that with this proposals we don't create future proposals, that would be a bit sad, you know Jon Johnson 07:41, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can find my self on this one. NP can indeed better be handled by the congress. Though I would put a remark on "Having both state and federal elections held at the same date". The next federal elections will be held over more than half a year and we really need good governours a.s.a.p. Perhaps we could better make an exception to this one now :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:42, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but no worries on that, I think nobody has problems with that, elections can easily get through congress voting's Jon Johnson 07:45, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * PS:can I indeed speak freely in this room? Or is it unconstitutional?