Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Any amendment won't fix the substantial problem here. Punishing someone for his/her intention to commit a crime is a bit vague. No one guanrantees that person will ever actually commit a crime. It's a bit of a stretch, but you can compare this to punishing someone for expressing their thoughts, in that case thoughts on committing a crime.

And honestly, where this can work IRL with, eg terrorism, I hardly see how this would work here on NS.

Edit: Minor wording fixes

World Trade

Islonia wrote:Any amendment won't fix the substantial problem here. Punishing someone for his/her intention to commit a crime is a bit vague. No one guanrantees that person will ever actually commit a crime. It's a bit of a street, but you can compare this to punishing someon for expressing their thoughts, in that case thoughts on committing a crime.

And honestly, where this can work IRL with, eg terrorism, I hardly see how this would work here on NS.

I do agree with this.

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article II - An addition, Section I - Intention to Commit A Crime to read as follows:

Intention to Commit a Crime shall be added to the legal code. It shall be defined as when one (or multiple) person(s) has the intention to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of this region.[/spoiler]

Islonia wrote:Any amendment won't fix the substantial problem here. Punishing someone for his/her intention to commit a crime is a bit vague. No one guarantees that person will ever actually commit a crime. It's a bit of a stretch, but you can compare this to punishing someone for expressing their thoughts, in that case thoughts on committing a crime.

And honestly, where this can work IRL with, eg terrorism, I hardly see how this would work here on NS.

This is quite a good point to be fair--however I believe that if someone has substantial proof that someone really intends to commit a crime, instead of just thinking about it or expressing a desire to do so-- or a joke, perhaps-- and for example plans it out or undertakes steps leading up to committing the crime, or the evidence provided clearly shows their intent to do it past a desire or joke-- for example if I said to 3/4 different people that I intended to fraud the election, or I spoke about doing so very often (perhaps a bad example-- then it should be punishable by law to prevent the crime happening before it can begin.

Of course the High Court will heavily overlook the case, to determine if someone deserves punishment for breaching this, and between if they are just joking or expressing a light desire. An intention to commit a crime is the intention to actually carry it out, not want to do so or think about it.

Edit: Responded to Islonia

Andusre

"Conspiracy - Conspiracy to commit a crime will be defined as any agreement made by two or more persons to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of the region, at some point in the future." L.R. 008

I believe we already have a system in place in our legal codes.

Brototh, Islonia, Andusre

World Trade, Fishergate

Islonia, Marvinville, Dendrobium, Brototh

Conspiracy, defined in the legal code right now, covers groups of people (two or more) intending to commit a crime. This is why, though I thank you for proposing it, I urge you to withdraw the amendment, as passing it would be a repetition of existing law. The rationale for the Intention section is because the current definition of Conspiracy is specifically limited to groups of two or more people, and ignores the reality that crime can be committed by one person acting alone. I understand concerns about the wording of the section and am open to amendments for it.

In the meantime, Broustan and I will be putting forward an amendment soon.

edit: ah, Marv has mentioned the legal code stuff

Marvinville

Andusre wrote:Islonia, Marvinville, Dendrobium, Brototh

Conspiracy, defined in the legal code right now, covers groups of people (two or more) intending to commit a crime. This is why, though I thank you for proposing it, I urge you to withdraw the amendment, as passing it would be a repetition of existing law. The rationale for the Intention section is because the current definition of Conspiracy is specifically limited to groups of two or more people, and ignores the reality that crime can be committed by one person acting alone. I understand concerns about the wording of the section and am open to amendments for it.

In the meantime, Broustan and I will be putting forward an amendment soon.

edit: ah, Marv has mentioned the legal code stuff

In a legal sense, I would think it would be tough to prove in court that an individual nation had the intention to commit a crime without actually committing it if they kept it internal and never actually told someone.

Islonia, Fishergate

Andusre wrote:[spoiler]Conspiracy, defined in the legal code right now, covers groups of people (two or more) intending to commit a crime. This is why, though I thank you for proposing it, I urge you to withdraw the amendment, as passing it would be a repetition of existing law. The rationale for the Intention section is because the current definition of Conspiracy is specifically limited to groups of two or more people, and ignores the reality that crime can be committed by one person acting alone. I understand concerns about the wording of the section and am open to amendments for it.

In the meantime, Broustan and I will be putting forward an amendment soon.[/spoiler]

Oh lol I didn't see that. My mistake. I withdraw Amendment A

Andusre, Marvinville

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Marvinville

Snowflame

World Trade

Senators, the proposed definition of blackmail has been changed to as follows:

Blackmail will be defined as coercing, whether successfully or not, one or more individual(s) into doing something against their will by threatening them with an action which would harm them in some way. Examples of threats include threatening to file a court case against someone, the PM threatening to fire a minister, doxxing threats, et cetera.

The existing definition will be struck out in full. We would also like to put forward the following amendment for Senators to vote on:

[spoiler=The Bystander Amendment (Amendment A)]

Article XVII - The Duty of Candour will be added to the legal code:

The Duty of Candour will be defined as the legal requirement to act when a resident is made aware of the committing of a crime. This requirement to act applies to crimes (of which the regional justice system is unaware) committed in secret in the past, to crimes being committed in the present and to crimes being planned for the future. Failure to act will constitute a crime. 'To act' is defined based on the position of the person who is made aware of a crime: government officials with the authority to file criminal court cases must file criminal court cases as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so; residents must report the crime and any evidence they may have to the appropriate government officials, namely the Justice Minister.[/spoiler]

World Trade, Broustan, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Zanaana, The Peoples Caribbean Union

There is a difference between intention to commit a crime, and planning a crime. In my opinion it would be better to punish those who have, in some way, planned their crime, rather than someone who plans to commit one, who could easily decide against it later even if they are fully committed to it before planning.

I understand that the intention includes planning it, but it is not the same the other way around, something I feel is better.

Brototh

Andusre wrote:[spoiler=The Bystander Amendment (Amendment A)]

Article XVII - The Duty of Candour will be added to the legal code:

The Duty of Candour will be defined as the legal requirement to act when a resident is made aware of the committing of a crime. This requirement to act applies to crimes (of which the regional justice system is unaware) committed in secret in the past, to crimes being committed in the present and to crimes being planned for the future. Failure to act will constitute a crime. 'To act' is defined based on the position of the person who is made aware of a crime: government officials with the authority to file criminal court cases must file criminal court cases as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so; residents must report the crime and any evidence they may have to the appropriate government officials, namely the Justice Minister.[/spoiler]

So after punishing people for intending to commit a crime (which doesn't work on NS), we're also going to punish people because they didn't play the denunciation game? Even if they didn't do anything?

It's way too extreme for me.

World Trade wrote:There is a difference between intention to commit a crime, and planning a crime. In my opinion it would be better to punish those who have, in some way, planned their crime, rather than someone who plans to commit one, who could easily decide against it later even if they are fully committed to it before planning.

I understand that the intention includes planning it, but it is not the same the other way around, something I feel is better.

The problem is that if someone is planning a crime, obviously he/she will tell it to no one and plan it secretly in a way no one can know. If he/she tells someone and that person reports it, it will allegations without proofs anyway.

Also, this:

Fishergate wrote:Sorry for double post

Re the House debate: adding 'intention to commit a crime' to the law registry seems to me like a bad idea. It's impossible to prove what someone's intentions are, even when they seem obvious. It can't be illegal to fantasise about committing a crime, it can only be illegal to actually commit a crime (or in the case of conspiracy, to actively plan and prepare a crime and share this with others). If someone creates detailed plans about how they would commit a crime, it may well seem that they intend to do it, but that's impossible to prove. I distinguish this from conspiracy and incitement, both of which also do not involve the perpetrator actually committing a crime themselves, because both of those actions actively encourage others to commit crimes. A conspirator can argue that they never had any intention to follow through with their plans, just as someone who creates plans for their own private consumption could, but they cannot argue with complete confidence that none of their conspirators intended to follow through either.

'Intention to commit a crime' seems to me like something that could never be proven without a high level of subjectivity and which risks persecuting people for their thoughts rather than their actions. As long as the individual in question never shares their plans with anyone else, or carries them out themself, they cannot be guilty of any crime in my opinion.

World Trade, Marvinville

the problem with punishing "the intention to commit a crime" is that it can only really be certain after the deed is done that this intention was strong enough to actually be put in practice

this would simply turn it into a "regular" crime because in online situations "the intention to commit a crime" could only be known for certain if the suspect has been told on by someone they trusted, which brings up to issue if wether this trusted person would have been guilty of the crime or not; or if, as already mentioned, the crime has been done already

Islonia

I personally don't agree with Amendment A nor the addition of the intention to commit a crime into the legal code. I think that this issue that we are all talking about is only really applicable to real life scenarios and wouldn't really work in this game.

Islonia

Andusre wrote:[spoiler=The Bystander Amendment (Amendment A)]

Article XVII - The Duty of Candour will be added to the legal code:

The Duty of Candour will be defined as the legal requirement to act when a resident is made aware of the committing of a crime. This requirement to act applies to crimes (of which the regional justice system is unaware) committed in secret in the past, to crimes being committed in the present and to crimes being planned for the future. Failure to act will constitute a crime. 'To act' is defined based on the position of the person who is made aware of a crime: government officials with the authority to file criminal court cases must file criminal court cases as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so; residents must report the crime and any evidence they may have to the appropriate government officials, namely the Justice Minister.[/spoiler]

If I'm understanding it right-- this would make it a criminal offence to learn of someone committing a crime and then not acting on it. Which, in my opinion, is a well needed addition. If you find out someone is say blackmailing someone and then do not act on it-- you're just as guilty as the person committing the crime in the first place.

If I'm wrong, then I'm going to look like a fool for the second time in the debate XP. As Islonia used the term, 'playing the deununciation game' (despite he disagrees with it)- is very well needed. If I learn that someone is doing something illegal and I don't act, all I'm doing is destroying myself in the process-- be it a crime or not, which I heavily believe it should be.

And to answer the main subject of the debate thus far-if you disagree with Intention to Commit a Crime, then you must disagree with Conspiracy as well, which is already in LR 008. If you wish to propose 'Amendment B' to remove Intention to Commit a Crime, then I strongly suggest you advocate to either amend Conspiracy or remove that too in a future bill. While Conspiracy does indeed specify there must be an agreement-- it bangs the same drum -- an agreement is not a guarantee it will be done. Which seems interesting, because Chair. Marvinville seems to use Conspiracy to further the debate yet also opposes Intention to Commit a Crime.

I for one, will be voting for this bill and Amendment A.

World Trade, Andusre

I would like to propose this amendment.

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Remove Article II

Article II - An addition, Section I - Intention to Commit a Crime: Intention to Commit a Crime shall be added to the legal code. It shall be defined as when one person has the intention to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of this region.

[/spoiler]

Brototh wrote:If I'm understanding it right-- this would make it a criminal offence to learn of someone committing a crime and then not acting on it. Which, in my opinion, is a well needed addition. If you find out someone is say blackmailing someone and then do not act on it-- you're just as guilty as the person committing the crime in the first place.

If I'm wrong, then I'm going to look like a fool for the second time in the debate XP. As Islonia used the term, 'playing the deununciation game' (despite he disagrees with it)- is very well needed. If I learn that someone is doing something illegal and I don't act, all I'm doing is destroying myself in the process-- be it a crime or not, which I heavily believe it should be.

Instead of forcing people to report crimes (especially considering this can be abused or misused), the crime of "Complicity" should be added. In practice it's the same, but you just remove that authoritarian element where you are forced to denounce people.

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Add to Article II - An addition

Section [I or II] - Complicity

Involvement in the crime committed by another either by aiding or concealing it.[/spoiler]

Brototh wrote:And to answer the main subject of the debate thus far-if you disagree with Intention to Commit a Crime, then you must disagree with Conspiracy as well, which is already in LR 008. If you wish to propose 'Amendment B' to remove Intention to Commit a Crime, then I strongly suggest you advocate to either amend Conspiracy or remove that too in a future bill. While Conspiracy does indeed specify there must be an agreement-- it bangs the same drum -- an agreement is not a guarantee it will be done. Which seems interesting, because Chair. Marvinville seems to use Conspiracy to further the debate yet also opposes Intention to Commit a Crime.

I for one, will be voting for this bill and Amendment A.

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Add to Article I - Amendments:

Section III

Remove Article VII: Conspiracy

Conspiracy to commit a crime will be defined as any agreement made by two or more persons to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of the region, at some point in the future.[/spoiler]

And Marv proposed Amendment B, so I won't propose one to remove the Intention to commit a crime.

Senate Chair Marvinville

I'll post a reply to yall as soon as I can. I'm at the supermarket with my mum atm.

Islonia wrote:Instead of forcing people to report crimes (especially considering this can be abused or misused), the crime of "Complicity" should be added. In practice it's the same, but you just remove that authoritarian element where you are forced to denounce people.

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Add to Article II - An addition

Section [I or II] - Complicity

Involvement in the crime committed by another either by aiding or concealing it.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Add to Article I - Amendments:

Section III

Remove Article VII: Conspiracy

Conspiracy to commit a crime will be defined as any agreement made by two or more persons to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of the region, at some point in the future.[/spoiler]

And Marv proposed Amendment B, so I won't propose one to remove the Intention to commit a crime.

Frankly I like Amendment C better than Amendment A, shorter, simpler, and to the point, unless there is something big I am missing in Amendment A.

also damn that massive backfire on conspiracy hits me hard

Islonia, Senate Chair Marvinville

I'll give Andusre a few more hours to respond before we can move on to vote on the proposed amendments to the bill. If he response and sparks another active debate in the Senate, I will postpone the vote on the amendments to tomorrow morning.

Islonia wrote:So after punishing people for intending to commit a crime (which doesn't work on NS), we're also going to punish people because they didn't play the denunciation game? Even if they didn't do anything?

It's way too extreme for me.

Refer to what Brototh said: "this would make it a criminal offence to learn of someone committing a crime and then not acting on it. Which, in my opinion, is a well needed addition. If you find out someone is say blackmailing someone and then do not act on it-- you're just as guilty as the person committing the crime in the first place." He sums up the rationale behind the amendment very well. There is no need for any sort of public denunciation, no need for an unneeded humiliation of anyone. All the amendment means is that when anyone is aware of a crime, they must report it to the appropriate regional authorities. This duty of candour is widely used across a variety of scenarios, including IRL ones and is very useful for enforcing rules & laws.

Islonia wrote:The problem is that if someone is planning a crime, obviously he/she will tell it to no one and plan it secretly in a way no one can know. If he/she tells someone and that person reports it, it will allegations without proofs anyway.

It may not get used much, but that isn't an enormous concern. None of our sections of the legal code are used that often - we haven't had a single criminal case in all our history. Furthermore, the Intention section can act in a symbolic fashion. At the moment, the only way you could get prosecuted for a crime is if you do it, and get caught doing it. Passing this act would be a firm reminder to everyone that it isn't acceptable to consider breaking regional law, and intending to do is not acceptable either. Perhaps the Senate would be more satisfied if something was added to the end of the definition along the lines of "with the demonstrable intention to proceed to commit a crime".

Islonia wrote:Instead of forcing people to report crimes (especially considering this can be abused or misused), the crime of "Complicity" should be added. In practice it's the same, but you just remove that authoritarian element where you are forced to denounce people.

Again, there is no aspect of denunciation or shaming with the duty of candour. It also isn't authoritarian, and framing it that way is a bit dishonest. With respect to Amendment C itself:

Islonia wrote:

Add to Article II - An addition

Section [I or II] - Complicity

Involvement in the crime committed by another either by aiding or concealing it.

In my view this is a far too simplistic and vague definition. What if someone gifts someone stamps, which are then used by the recipient to TG the whole region doxxing a third party, under this defintion, the person who gifted the stamps would be guilty of complicity - they did "aid" the crime by supplying the doxxer with the stamps needed. "concealing it" is also pretty vague. The reason Brousty and I spent quite a while (relatively speaking) writing such a wordy definition for the Duty of Candour is because it is a very delicate proposition which requires fine attention for detail, otherwise you're gonna end up criminalising people who, in practice, have committed no crime.

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Add to Article I - Amendments:

Section III

Remove Article VII: Conspiracy

Conspiracy to commit a crime will be defined as any agreement made by two or more persons to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of the region, at some point in the future.[/spoiler]

I don't support striking out Conspiracy from the Legal code exactly, but I do think that some degree of consistency is needed. We should either repeal Conspiracy and reject Intention, or pass Intention and leave Conspiracy as it is (or amend it to fit better, either works in this dilemma)

Marvinville wrote:I personally don't agree with Amendment A nor the addition of the intention to commit a crime into the legal code. I think that this issue that we are all talking about is only really applicable to real life scenarios and wouldn't really work in this game.

Is this the part about IRL being inapplicable sometimes to NS about Intention to commit a crime, or Amendment A?

Brototh, Broustan

Andusre wrote:

Is this the part about IRL being inapplicable sometimes to NS about Intention to commit a crime, or Amendment A?

Both about intention to commit a crime and Amendment A

Marvinville wrote:Both about intention to commit a crime and Amendment A

Whilst it's true that the crimes are sometimes used IRL, I don't see why it wouldn't work on this game.

Brototh

Andusre wrote:Whilst it's true that the crimes are sometimes used IRL, I don't see why it wouldn't work on this game.

We have seen many things that work IRL that dont work in this game, like the House Committees. I believe that this would be an addition to that list.

Marvinville wrote:We have seen many things that work IRL that dont work in this game, like the House Committees. I believe that this would be an addition to that list.

Why though

Brototh

Andusre wrote:Why though

I think it would be very difficult to prove that an individual nation had planned to commit a crime without actually telling someone.

Marvinville wrote:I think it would be very difficult to prove that an individual nation had planned to commit a crime without actually telling someone.

Just because something may be difficult to prove does not mean it shouldn't be a crime. This is a very extreme example but IRL, rape trials very rarely end up with a conviction because it is notoriously difficult to prove, and I'm sure if you went around calling for the legalisation of rape, you'd get a few weird looks... and maybe a black eye, but anyway, the point is that 'provability' shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether or not we as a region view something as right or wrong, legal or illegal.

Also, consider that this part:

Marvinville wrote:without actually telling someone.

With the Duty of Candour addition, the person who got told would have to report it to the regional justice system, and thus the two complement each other really quite nicely.

Broustan

I have a new amendment to propose. I created this amendment due to the recent issue we had with PCU impersonating Xernon, which has called for him to be recalled from the House of Commons. Please let me know your thoughts on this and if the definition could be worded better.

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Add to Article II - An addition

Impersonation shall be defined as the intention to act or pretending to be another person for the purpose of entertainment or fraud. An example of impersonation is the creation of a nation with a similar name of another one in the region with the intent of impersonating them.

[/spoiler]

Marvinville wrote:with the intent to

:lmaocry:

Islonia, Brototh, Broustan

Andusre wrote:In my view this is a far too simplistic and vague definition. What if someone gifts someone stamps, which are then used by the recipient to TG the whole region doxxing a third party, under this defintion, the person who gifted the stamps would be guilty of complicity - they did "aid" the crime by supplying the doxxer with the stamps needed. "concealing it" is also pretty vague. The reason Brousty and I spent quite a while (relatively speaking) writing such a wordy definition for the Duty of Candour is because it is a very delicate proposition which requires fine attention for detail, otherwise you're gonna end up criminalising people who, in practice, have committed no crime.

You're really making it vaguer than it is. It's obvious that if someone gifts stamps to another person, this isn't enough of a proof to prosecute him/her. You need proof like DMs or TGs to contextualise the gift. As for concealing, you can nickname it hiding or whatever you want, it's still the same.

The Duty of Candour is an overstep and also something that can be used to criminalise people who in practice also committed no crime. Only because it forces anyone to reveal criminal intentions, you can actually punish someone who's innocent.

Andusre wrote:[spoiler=Amendment D]

Add to Article I - Amendments:

Section III

Remove Article VII: Conspiracy

Conspiracy to commit a crime will be defined as any agreement made by two or more persons to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of the region, at some point in the future.[/spoiler]

I don't support striking out Conspiracy from the Legal code exactly, but I do think that some degree of consistency is needed. We should either repeal Conspiracy and reject Intention, or pass Intention and leave Conspiracy as it is (or amend it to fit better, either works in this dilemma)

I do agree on either we pass the Intention to Commit a crime or we do not pass it and remove Conspiracy. Not much logic in having one and not the other.

Andusre

Amendment Voting - Amendments to L.R. 008

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsor: Broustan

We will now begin voting on the 5 amendments that have been submitted before we move on to the final vote on the bill.

Amendment A

Author: Andusre

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Add to Article II - An addition

The Duty of Candour - The Duty of Candour will be defined as the legal requirement to act when a resident is made aware of the committing of a crime. This requirement to act applies to crimes (of which the regional justice system is unaware) committed in secret in the past, to crimes being committed in the present and to crimes being planned for the future. Failure to act will constitute a crime. 'To act' is defined based on the position of the person who is made aware of a crime: government officials with the authority to file criminal court cases must file criminal court cases as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so; residents must report the crime and any evidence they may have to the appropriate government officials, namely the Justice Minister.

[/spoiler]

Amendment B

Author: Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Remove Article II, Section I

Intention to Commit a Crime: Intention to Commit a Crime shall be added to the legal code. It shall be defined as when one person has the intention to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of this region.

[/spoiler]

Amendment C

Author: Islonia

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Add to Article II - An addition

Complicity - Involvement in the crime committed by another either by aiding or concealing it.

[/spoiler]

Amendment D

Author: Islonia

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Add to Article I - Amendments

Remove Article VII: Conspiracy: Conspiracy to commit a crime will be defined as any agreement made by two or more persons to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of the region, at some point in the future.

[/spoiler]

Amendment E

Author: Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Add to Article II - An addition

Impersonation - Impersonation shall be defined as the intention to act or pretending to be another person for the purpose of entertainment or fraud. An example of impersonation is the creation of a nation with a similar name of another one in the region with the intent of impersonating them.

[/spoiler]

My votes on the proposed Amendments:

A - Nay

B - Aye

C - Aye

D - Nay

E - Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

World Trade, Zanaana

Aye to A

Nay to all else

A- Aye

B- Aye

C- Nay

D- Nay

E- Aye

A. Nay

B. Aye

C. Aye

D. Aye

E. Abstain

Aye to A

Nay to the rest

A: Aye

B: Aye

C: Abstain

D: Nay

E: Aye

A- Nay

B- Aye

C- Aye

D- Nay

E- Aye

Amendment Results - Amendments to L.R. 008

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsor: Andusre

Amendment A (PASSED)

Author: Andusre

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Add to Article II - An addition

The Duty of Candour - The Duty of Candour will be defined as the legal requirement to act when a resident is made aware of the committing of a crime. This requirement to act applies to crimes (of which the regional justice system is unaware) committed in secret in the past, to crimes being committed in the present and to crimes being planned for the future. Failure to act will constitute a crime. 'To act' is defined based on the position of the person who is made aware of a crime: government officials with the authority to file criminal court cases must file criminal court cases as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so; residents must report the crime and any evidence they may have to the appropriate government officials, namely the Justice Minister.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (4) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, World Trade

Nays (3) - Islonia, Marvinville, Snowflame

Abstentions (0) -

[/spoiler]

Amendment B (PASSED)

Author: Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Remove Article II, Section I

Intention to Commit a Crime: Intention to Commit a Crime shall be added to the legal code. It shall be defined as when one person has the intention to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of this region.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (5) - Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Snowflame, World Trade

Nays (2) - Andusre, Brototh

Abstentions (0)

[/spoiler]

Amendment C (FAILED)

Author: Islonia

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Add to Article II - An addition

Complicity - Involvement in the crime committed by another either by aiding or concealing it.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (3) - Islonia, Marvinville, Snowflame

Nays (3) - Andusre, Brototh, World Trade

Abstentions (1) - Dendrobium

[/spoiler]

Amendment D (FAILED)

Author: Islonia

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Add to Article I - Amendments

Remove Article VII: Conspiracy: Conspiracy to commit a crime will be defined as any agreement made by two or more persons to commit a crime, as defined by the laws of the region, at some point in the future.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (1) - Islonia

Nays (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Marvinville, Snowflame, World Trade

Abstentions (0)

[/spoiler]

Amendment E (PASSED)

Author: Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Add to Article II - An addition

Impersonation - Impersonation shall be defined as the intention to act or pretending to be another person for the purpose of entertainment or fraud. An example of impersonation is the creation of a nation with a similar name of another one in the region with the intent of impersonating them.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Vote Results]

Ayes (4) - Dendrobium, Marvinville, Snowflame, World Trade

Nays (2) - Andusre, Brototh

Abstentions (1) - Islonia

[/spoiler]

Voting - Amendments to L.R. 008

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsor: Andusre

As amended by: Andusre & Marvinville

We have now begun voting on the bill to amend L.R. 008, as amended by the Senate.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Results - Amendments to L.R. 008

Amendments to L.R. 008

Authors: Andusre & Broustan

Sponsor: Andusre

As amended by: Andusre and Marvinville

Ayes (5) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Marvinville, Snowflame

Nays (0)

Abstentions (2) - Islonia, World Trade

The Bill to amend L.R. 008 has passed the Senate and now moves to the House of Commons.

[spoiler=Speaker of the House]

Zanaana

[/spoiler]

Andusre, Brototh, Zanaana

Opening Debate - Amendments to L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009

Authors: Zon Island & Indian Genius

Sponsors: Zon Island & Indian Genius

As amended by: Rhyssua

We will now begin debating this bill to amend L.R. 009. This bill has previously passed the House of Commons and now looks to Senate approval or rejection. Any Senator can propose amendments if they wish. I also invite both MP's Zon Island and Indian Genius to participate in our debate since they are the authors of this piece of legislation.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Indian Genius

Senate Chair Marvinville wrote:Opening Debate - Amendments to L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009

Authors: Zon Island & Indian Genius

Sponsors: Zon Island & Indian Genius

As amended by: Rhyssua

We will now begin debating this bill to amend L.R. 009. This bill has previously passed the House of Commons and now looks to Senate approval or rejection. Any Senator can propose amendments if they wish. I also invite both MP's Zon Island and Indian Genius to participate in our debate since they are the authors of this piece of legislation.

a) There's no point in having citizens have the chance to sign a petition for it, if the law makers don't support it enough to actually sign it once at least five citizens say 'do this', they won't pass it. It requires 3 members of Congress to do so. 3 across all chambers combined.

aI) 20? What? Why? 20 is far too much. 15 is my limit. 10 is better.

b) The line 'or petition which depends on the initiator of the recall.' means it doesn't have to be styled as a regular piece of legislation, so that means the petition--which has to be styled in the form of a correction if I'm correct in believing-- meaning Congress can't even do anything. If it's not styled as legislation it's automatically defunct.

c) I may be nitpicking here, but 'shall be treated similar to a Snap Election'. So...what's similar? Is it just the same as a snap election? Why is the word similar there then? It just makes it more complicated, because now you have to define what is and isn't similar. Is an election where we have to sing in vc (poor example, but levity) for the seat 'similar'?

cI) "The Recall Election is open for every candidate who is legally valid to contest a regular Congressional election." Why is this even here. What's the point. Yes, obviously.

Nay. Prefer my own bill.

Dizgovzy, World Trade, Indian Genius, Senate Chair Marvinville

Brototh wrote:a) There's no point in having citizens have the chance to sign a petition for it, if the law makers don't support it enough to actually sign it once at least five citizens say 'do this', they won't pass it. It requires 3 members of Congress to do so. 3 across all chambers combined.

aI) 20? What? Why? 20 is far too much. 15 is my limit. 10 is better.

b) The line 'or petition which depends on the initiator of the recall.' means it doesn't have to be styled as a regular piece of legislation, so that means the petition--which has to be styled in the form of a correction if I'm correct in believing-- meaning Congress can't even do anything. If it's not styled as legislation it's automatically defunct.

c) I may be nitpicking here, but 'shall be treated similar to a Snap Election'. So...what's similar? Is it just the same as a snap election? Why is the word similar there then? It just makes it more complicated, because now you have to define what is and isn't similar. Is an election where we have to sing in vc (poor example, but levity) for the seat 'similar'?

cI) "The Recall Election is open for every candidate who is legally valid to contest a regular Congressional election." Why is this even here. What's the point. Yes, obviously.

Nay. Prefer my own bill.

You could always propose amendments...

Indian Genius

Senate Chair Marvinville wrote:You could always propose amendments...

The problem is, I have a problem with the large majority of the bill. Might propose amendments later but am doing something else right now

Senate Chair Marvinville

I respond later, not available now

I have a few amendments I want to propose. I believe Amendments A and B will greatly improve this bill while Amendment C is just making a minor change in the structure of the bill, given its unusual format. I hope my fellow Senators will support all 3 amendments once they go to vote.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend Article I: Initiating a Recall

Article I : Initiating a Recall

The process whereby a Recall is initiated against a member of Congress is to mirror that of any piece of legislation or petition which depends on the initiator of the recall. It may that must be initiated by three members of Congress or it may be initiated by twenty citizens respectively. It shall be treated as a piece of regular legislation if it is initiated by three members of Congress and a piece of petition if it is initiated by twenty citizens.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

To amend Article IV: Recall Elections

A Recall Election shall have the same rules/guidelines as any Special/By-election. be treated similar to a Snap Election. is held in accordance with Article III, Section II of this law is to be This election shall be open for any and all candidates who would be legally valid to contest a regular Congressional election. The recalled member may stand to recontest their seat if they wish to do so. The Recall Election is open for every candidate who is legally valid to contest a regular Congressional election. Recall Elections are to be held under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commissioner.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

To amend the Legend

The portion that is striked shall be repealed and the portion that is in italics bolded shall be added

[/spoiler]

World Trade, Brototh

Brototh wrote:a) There's no point in having citizens have the chance to sign a petition for it, if the law makers don't support it enough to actually sign it once at least five citizens say 'do this', they won't pass it. It requires 3 members of Congress to do so. 3 across all chambers combined.

aI) 20? What? Why? 20 is far too much. 15 is my limit. 10 is better.

b) The line 'or petition which depends on the initiator of the recall.' means it doesn't have to be styled as a regular piece of legislation, so that means the petition--which has to be styled in the form of a correction if I'm correct in believing-- meaning Congress can't even do anything. If it's not styled as legislation it's automatically defunct.

c) I may be nitpicking here, but 'shall be treated similar to a Snap Election'. So...what's similar? Is it just the same as a snap election? Why is the word similar there then? It just makes it more complicated, because now you have to define what is and isn't similar. Is an election where we have to sing in vc (poor example, but levity) for the seat 'similar'?

cI) "The Recall Election is open for every candidate who is legally valid to contest a regular Congressional election." Why is this even here. What's the point. Yes, obviously.

Nay. Prefer my own bill.

Hon. Senator, I shall answer all your questions.

a) The twenty citizens thingy is there to prevent corruption and bureaucracy. The present Congress is a good one and really cares for the people, but we don't know about the future. We should be prepared for the worst. If you want to reduce it to 15 or 10, you can do it.

b and c) Um, it seems that Hon. Chair. has answered it already.

Marvinville wrote:I have a few amendments I want to propose. I believe Amendments A and B will greatly improve this bill while Amendment C is just making a minor change in the structure of the bill, given its unusual format. I hope my fellow Senators will support all 3 amendments once they go to vote.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

To amend Article I: Initiating a Recall

Article I : Initiating a Recall

The process whereby a Recall is initiated against a member of Congress is to mirror that of any piece of legislation or petition which depends on the initiator of the recall. It may that must be initiated by three members of Congress or it may be initiated by twenty citizens respectively. It shall be treated as a piece of regular legislation if it is initiated by three members of Congress and a piece of petition if it is initiated by twenty citizens.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

To amend Article IV: Recall Elections

A Recall Election shall have the same rules/guidelines as any Special/By-election. be treated similar to a Snap Election. is held in accordance with Article III, Section II of this law is to be This election shall be open for any and all candidates who would be legally valid to contest a regular Congressional election. The recalled member may stand to recontest their seat if they wish to do so. The Recall Election is open for every candidate who is legally valid to contest a regular Congressional election. Recall Elections are to be held under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commissioner.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

To amend the Legend

The portion that is striked shall be repealed and the portion that is in italics bolded shall be added

[/spoiler]

I like your amendments. But, please don't strike out the twenty citizens thingy. Please just change it from petition to legislation.

I may be acting silly here, but what prevents the citizens from getting their recall of an elected individual sponsored by 3 members of Congress and therefore bypassing the 20 persons petition?

Other than that, just you know that if 3 congressmen/women refuse to sponsor a recall action, they will certainly vote against the one sent to them by a petition, which means it will fail anyway.

Indian Genius

Zon Island

World Trade, Indian Genius, Brototh

Islonia wrote:I may be acting silly here, but what prevents the citizens from getting their recall of an elected individual sponsored by 3 members of Congress and therefore bypassing the 20 persons petition?

Other than that, just you know that if 3 congressmen/women refuse to sponsor a recall action, they will certainly vote against the one sent to them by a petition, which means it will fail anyway.

Indian Genius

Zon Island

Well, that problem is faced by my bill in the docket which reforms the petitioning system. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1400108

Indian Genius wrote:Well, that problem is faced by my bill in the docket which reforms the petitioning system. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1400108

A majority of legislator can still vote "nay" and send the petition to hell anyhow.

Indian Genius, Brototh, Marvinville

Islonia wrote:A majority of legislator can still vote "nay" and send the petition to hell anyhow.

Um, nope. There is a thingy about a referendum there as well.

Indian Genius wrote:Um, nope. There is a thingy about a referendum there as well.

Oh god, even more referendums.

You're giving even more work to the EC here.

Anyway, we're talking about Congress here. And Congress always has the final word when it comes to recalling (and not impeaching) an elected congressman/woman.

Dizgovzy, World Trade, Indian Genius, Brototh, Marvinville

Islonia wrote:Oh god, even more referendums.

You're giving even more work to the EC here.

Anyway, we're talking about Congress here. And Congress always has the final word when it comes to recalling (and not impeaching) an elected congressman/woman.

My question is, why should it? The people have elected the Congress, the people should have the right to recall it as well.

Indian Genius wrote:My question is, why should it? The people have elected the Congress, the people should have the right to recall it as well.

Because people also want a democracy that works. If we let the citizen recall every freaking elected congressperson they want, our legislature's stability will be even lower than before.

This also opens the gates to more pressure on the congresspersons who were elected on certain ideals and thoughts they would have to ditch because they fear to be recalled.

It's also worth noting a recall may only (and not can only, which in itself constitutes a flaw that allows partisanship and public trials[/strike bashing to be a justification]) be called if a congressperson broke a law, the constitution, refuses to respect the procedures or is inactive. We don't need the citizens to enact a recall for this, only the other members of Congress to do their job or for the court to impeach.

Dizgovzy, World Trade, Indian Genius, Brototh, Marvinville

Islonia wrote:Because people also want a democracy that works. If we let the citizen recall every freaking elected congressperson they want, our legislature's stability will be even lower than before.

This also opens the gates to more pressure on the congresspersons who were elected on certain ideals and thoughts they would have to ditch because they fear to be recalled.

It's also worth noting a recall may only (and not can only, which in itself constitutes a flaw that allows partisanship and public trials[/strike bashing to be a justification]) be called if a congressperson broke a law, the constitution, refuses to respect the procedures or is inactive. We don't need the citizens to enact a recall for this, only the other members of Congress to do their job or for the court to impeach.

Ahem... First, no. Not any freaking citizen can recall a Congressman. When 25 citizens sign a petition and when that petition goes to a referendum and then a majority of everyone agrees to recall, then only a petition can recall a Congressman. Try to understand the point. It's quite hard to do that. But, like I said before, to prevent corruption and bureaucracy, we need a thing like this.

The point is, what if the whole Congress is dominated by people who broke the constitution and refuses to respect the procedures or is inactive. Party politics had dominated Thaecian politics for a long time before, and no one can say that it will not dominate it again in the future. And, that is the reason I added the thingy. I hope you understand my point and rationale behind adding that point.

Indian Genius wrote:Ahem... First, no. Not any freaking citizen can recall a Congressman. When 25 citizens sign a petition and when that petition goes to a referendum and then a majority of everyone agrees to recall, then only a petition can recall a Congressman. Try to understand the point. It's quite hard to do that. But, like I said before, to prevent corruption and bureaucracy, we need a thing like this.

Cut it off with "Try to understand the point" please. I perfectly understand the point and I am just stating my own opinion and thoughts on the subject. Plus, you're just wordpicking here and certainly understood my point about stability anyway.

Indian Genius wrote:The point is, what if the whole Congress is dominated by people who broke the constitution and refuses to respect the procedures or is inactive.

The court exists??? Seriously, it's not because we didn't do much during all those terms that they aren't an option, the court is not just a constitutional dictionary!

Indian Genius wrote:Party politics had dominated Thaecian politics for a long time before, and no one can say that it will not dominate it again in the future. And, that is the reason I added the thingy. I hope you understand my point and rationale behind adding that point.

Ah yes, party politics. Considering it's a constitutional obligation to have candidate politics, only the citizens themselves can change this, and as of now, a large portion of the population will refuse to switch to party politics.

Hell, if party politics even come back, some of our citizens might just straight leave politics because of how bad it (politics) would become, effectively draining a lot of experienced persons and maybe forcing the ones who voted aye to rethink the scale of what they just did. Party politics is a disease that was cured once, be sure that if a 2nd wave makes its apparition, everyone will gladly eradicate it before it can do any more damage, or leave the sinking ship altogether.

Dizgovzy, World Trade, Indian Genius, Brototh, Marvinville

Indian Genius wrote:Hon. Senator, I shall answer all your questions.

a) The twenty citizens thingy is there to prevent corruption and bureaucracy. The present Congress is a good one and really cares for the people, but we don't know about the future. We should be prepared for the worst. If you want to reduce it to 15 or 10, you can do it.

b and c) Um, it seems that Hon. Chair. has answered it already.

I like your amendments. But, please don't strike out the twenty citizens thingy. Please just change it from petition to legislation.

You are suggesting that 20 citizens can recall a Member of Congress via a petition? But Article II of the bill remains there? So it can get shot down regardless? This is utterly pointless. Why? To allow the people to have a say? What is the point? Congress will shoot it down anyway if 3, a very minimal amount of Congress, is unable to support it. I think that if Congress saw such an amount of people wanted to have them removed, then they'd do so, because 3 compared to 20 is a very, very big difference. Why is this phrase even here? It makes absolutely no sense.

Indian Genius wrote:Um, nope. There is a thingy about a referendum there as well.

You are going to introduce direct democracy next? Why don't you amend the entire Thaecian constitution to get rid of representative democracy next? Because that's all you are achieving here-- you are destroying the job of the legislators (Quite illogically as well, seeing as only 3 is needed)-- and handing all power to the people. While political expression and civil rights is important, and I agree that citizens should be able to overview what is being passed into their laws-- then they should run for Congress themselves.

I guarantee you Congress would give in far before the 20 citizens mark is needed, which in itself is very, very large. Most starboard posts don't even get 20 stars, let alone a petition for politics that quite a bit of the region isn't interested in regardless.

Indian Genius wrote:My question is, why should it? The people have elected the Congress, the people should have the right to recall it as well.

Because that's not how representative democracy works. Also, you contradict yourself in your own bill. Did you even read it?

Article I allows for citizens to initiate a recall, similar to how MPs and Senators can do so now, but then still requires for 2/3 of Congress to agree on it, Right, so, you've destroyed the purpose of that section of the bill-congratulations.

And I ask you, why are you debating your second bill-- that I am sure many of my fellow Senators will heavily dislike, considering it de facto introduces direct democracy-- in a debate about your amendments to LR 009?. This bill shouldn't require an amendment to the petitioning system to work, it should work on its own..

Indian Genius wrote:Ahem... First, no. Not any freaking citizen can recall a Congressman. When 25 citizens sign a petition and when that petition goes to a referendum and then a majority of everyone agrees to recall, then only a petition can recall a Congressman.

So is it 20 or 25? Or are you talking about your other bill again?

Indian Genius wrote:Try to understand the point. It's quite hard to do that. But, like I said before, to prevent corruption and bureaucracy, we need a thing like this.

What corruption and bureaucracy? I can maybe see where the corruption comes from--but again, that's how representative democracy works. If you have a problem with members of Congress, don't elect them again. You also realise that it still needs those predetermined requirements-- breaking rules/laws of NS/Thaecia, or being inactive for a prolonged period of time, to be recalled. There isn't corruption in that.

You also don't understand what bureaucracy means.

1.a system of government in which most of the important decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives.

Well, that's the very opposite of bureaucracy if only Congress can repeal it. Elected representatives take the important decisions. The PM or President isn't exactly recalling anyone here, are they?

2.excessively complicated administrative procedure.

If a referendum is needed, a petition by 25 (or 20, I am so lost-- see, complicated), to recall an official, then that's just more bureaucracy isn't it? Your own anti-bureaucracy method is exactly what it tries not to be.

Indian Genius wrote:The point is, what if the whole Congress is dominated by people who broke the constitution and refuses to respect the procedures or is inactive.

As the Hon. Sen. Islonia said, the Court exists.

Indian Genius wrote:Party politics had dominated Thaecian politics for a long time before, and no one can say that it will not dominate it again in the future. And, that is the reason I added the thingy. I hope you understand my point and rationale behind adding that point.

I don't even have a clue what you're saying. Refer to the post by Islonia. He seems to somehow understand whatever it is you have written.

This is a resounding nay from me. Amended or not. Your entire bill clings on needing another petition bill for it to work. You refuse to debate the actual bill as well, and are talking about something else we don't care about right now. If your bill doesn't work on it's own, it's a very bad bill. No amount of amendments can save, frankly, this pile of garbage. Sorry if that's rude or whatever-- but it's a sentiment I'm sure many agree on. The author of the bill doesn't even understand what it means. Sorry Zon, but you can't save this one.

Dizgovzy, Islonia, Dendrobium, Marvinville

Indian Genius, please refrain from putting another bill and attempting to debate it on the Senate floor. That is not our current business and we are only focused on the bill to amend L.R. 009, which you have shown no interest in defending or debating.

Amendment A that I proposed would get rid entirely of the petition information in the bill. I understand that's seems to be a major part of the bill and reasons why my fellow Senators are against it. I urge its passage and passage of the final bill, as amended.

Dizgovzy, World Trade, Brototh

My near and dear Honourable Friends in Senate, especially Marvinville, Brototh and Islonia, I would like to say that the main objective of this bill is to delete the old party politics thingy from the bill. You may amend it as you wish, but please do not vote nay to the bill. I know that party politics in Thaecia has come to a halt in recent times, and that was the main reason Zon and I wrote this bill. I was not referring to my other bill in my last post to Islonia.

I am stating again that this bill is intended to delete the party thing from the old act. Please vote aye on the amended bill by Hon. Chairperson, this is my solemn request to you all.

Indian Genius wrote:My near and dear Honourable Friends in Senate, especially Marvinville, Brototh and Islonia, I would like to say that the main objective of this bill is to delete the old party politics thingy from the bill. You may amend it as you wish, but please do not vote nay to the bill. I know that party politics in Thaecia has come to a halt in recent times, and that was the main reason Zon and I wrote this bill. I was not referring to my other bill in my last post to Islonia.

I am stating again that this bill is intended to delete the party thing from the old act. Please vote aye on the amended bill by Hon. Chairperson, this is my solemn request to you all.

What? If your entire intention was to delete the party politics section, why did you not just propose that? Why are you going on a tangent about some other petition bill? Practically everything you've added is a major nay from me, unless A&B both past (C is optional), I'm voting nay, also just want to reiterate what a bad amendment this is.

EDIT: Taking a further look at Marvinville's amendments they seem to remove the portion where it says it must be styled as a piece of regular legislation, on purpose or not. Even the amendments can't save this bill really. Hate to 'plug', but...https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1397700

EDIT2: No, it doesn't. God, look at how complicated this bill is. Even with amendments it's still so complicated. I can't bring myself to even consider voting aye.

Indian Genius, Marvinville

I wad about to write a whole paragraph on things wrong with this proposed bill, but I see Brototh and Islonia have already expressed most of my concerns with it.

Not only is it full of contradictions and does it go against what it claims to try and acchieve (refering mainly to the whole bureaucracy bit and 20 to 3 part here), it also defeats the purpose of the current democratic system of the region, where officials are elected to do their job and must be held accountable for their actions, because in the way it is structured a simple grudge of 3 officials of any governmental position would be able to take someone away of their post. you claimed this bill is supposed to prevent domination by party politics, but if anything it would strengthen large parties who would be able to call upon thier members/voters to eject rivals.

I have respect for Marvinville for his attempt to cure this bill of its mistakes by proposing ammendments, but I do not believe any amenment can keep this bill from becoming a desaster.

My vote will be Nay.

World Trade, Islonia, Brototh

I have decided to drop all 3 amendments to the bill

Voting - Amendments to L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009

Authors: Zon Island & Indian Genius

Sponsors: Zon Island & Indian Genius

As amended by: Rhyssua

We have now begun voting on the bill to amend L.R. 009, as passed by the House.

My vote is Nay

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

World Trade, Brototh

Nay

Brototh, Marvinville

Nay

World Trade, Marvinville

Nay

World Trade, Brototh, Marvinville

Nay

World Trade, Brototh, Marvinville

Nay

Brototh, Marvinville

Nay

Brototh, Senate Chair Marvinville

Results - Amendment to L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009

Authors: Zon Island & Indian Genius

Sponsors: Zon Island & Indian Genius

As amended by: Rhyssua

Ayes (0)

Nays (7) - Andusre, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Marvinville, Snowflame, World Trade

Abstentions (0)

This bill to amend L.R. 009 has failed!

Dizgovzy, World Trade

Post self-deleted by Senate Chair Marvinville.

Opening Debate - Amendments to L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009

Author: Brototh

Sponsor: Brototh

We have now begun debating this bill to amend L.R. 009. Any Senator can propose amendments to the bill if they wish to do so.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

yeah i mean at least it's not...whatever that was

Dizgovzy

I don't feel like burning it, so yeah, it seems alright to me.

These amendments seem good😁

Post self-deleted by Zon Island.

Yeah it's way better than what was proposed before.

We can see the difference between this debate and the last one.

Post self-deleted by Islonia.

Post by Zon Island suppressed by Senate Chair Marvinville.

Zon Island

Islonia wrote:Please delete your message, the debate on this bill ended.

Sorry

Voting - Amendments to L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009

Author: Brototh

Sponsor: Brototh

Voting has now begun on this bill to amend L.R. 009.

My vote is Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Aye

World Trade

Post self-deleted by World Trade.

Results - Amendments to L.R. 009

Amendments to L.R. 009

Author: Brototh

Sponsor: Brototh

Ayes (6) - Andusre, Brototh, Islonia, Marvinville, Snowflame, World Trade

Nays (0)

Abstentions (1) - Dendrobium

This bill to amend L.R. 009 has passed the Senate and now moves on to the House of Commons for further action.

[spoiler=Speaker of the House]

Zanaana

[/spoiler]

World Trade, Zanaana

Opening Debate - Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

We have now begun debating the Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020. Please express your thoughts on this bill and propose any amendments if you wish to do so.

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief

I think that the everyone here can agree that congress need an expansion. This bill is very clear, and makes the problem go away. I therefore feel that this bill is fit for purpose.

Snowflame, Emazia, Senate Chair Marvinville

World Trade wrote:I think that the everyone here can agree that congress need an expansion. This bill is very clear, and makes the problem go away. I therefore feel that this bill is fit for purpose.

^ This

It's explicit, there's no unnecessary sentence and it does the job. Aye from me. 😛

World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Snowflame, Emazia, Senate Chair Marvinville

Congress needs to be expanded, this is a must. Last election, there was an unnecessary amount of competition and it was exceedingly competitive. With the growing population, Congress also needs to grow.

I plan on voting aye for this bill😁

World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Emazia, Marvinville, Zanaana

Nothing has been said that I wouldn't say as well. However, despite the fact I do not support this-- I know some Senators and MPs do, so let's give a chance to vote on it.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Amend Article I - House Expansion to read as follows:

The House of Commons will be expanded by 4 seats, to a total of 15 seats.[/spoiler]

I for one, do not like this, however in the recent Congressional expansion debates in #thaecian-politics, I am well aware that a lot of people do support it. Personally however I think that 13 is a lot more sensible considering the recent, well, fun, the House has been having.

Marvinville

I think that it would be best to expand the HoC to 13 to start with. It is a reasonable expansion and also gives us a chance to expand it again to 15 if need be.

Marvinville

I think the House of Commons should be expanded to 15 for a number of reasons.

1. The last election was incredibly competitive. 18 out of the 22 candidates in the last election had the House as their first priority or had it as their second priority whilst running for an executive position. With only 11 seats, this meant a lot of candidates who otherwise could have made great MPs were turned away pretty much needlessly. Expanding the House to 13 would help with that issue, but it doesn't come anywhere close to striking the perfect balance we look for in Congress (side note: the balance I'm talking about is the balance between having elections competitive enough such that people can't just waltz into the HoC unopposed, but also making sure that elections aren't so competitive that new people cannot get involved. 15, in my opinion, brings us much much closer to striking that balance as 15/18 or 15/22 would have been seated, rather than a very undemocratic 11/18 or 11/22.

2. The House of commons is a launchpad. New people often feel, because the House is bigger, that if they want to get involved in regional politics, they almost run for the House first. They then get a bit more experience, maybe head to the Senate and if they're really lucky then progress to a ministerial job or the PM/Presidency. It obviously isn't the only way to get involved in regional politics, but it is the natural progression. Marconian State and Rayekka, our current president and former prime minister respectively, both started their regional careers in the House of Commons. Same with Aexodius, who has done various jobs & ministries in the executive after starting his political career in the House. Plus, losing an election really hurts new people. I had this first hand trying to convince RPWK to run again in the general election following a defeat in the previous midterm elections. We don't want the House to be incredibly competitive because it is a very very valuable tool for integrating new people into the region.

3. We can always downsize. It is ok to make mistakes, and we - on this internet simulator game - should not worry about being over-ambitious. If it is found that 15 seats is in fact too large, we can always reduce the size of the chamber when the next election comes around.

4. We have mechanisms which mean that if inactive MPs are elected, the House can mostly keep functioning. When a member of congress misses a vote, it is counted as an abstention. When a member of congress abstains, it is not included in the votes of the chamber. So long as at least half of a 15-seated House votes (when quorum is reached), the chamber can and will keep functioning. This is why we shouldn't be afraid of making elections just a bit too easy either - it can still work if we go overboard.

The Bigtopia, Zanaana

Opening Vote on Amendments - Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

We're now voting on Amendment A to the Congressional Expansion Act. I am opening this vote with the permission of Marvinville, who is currently unable to open the vote due to real life circumstances.

Congressional Expansion Act of July 2020

Author: Marvinville

Sponsor: Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Author: Brototh

Amend Article I - House Expansion to read as follows:

The House of Commons will be expanded by 4 seats, to a total of 15 seats.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Senators]

Andusre

Brototh

Dendrobium

Islonia

Snowflame

World Trade

[/spoiler]

My vote is Aye on Amendment A. My rationale is posted above.

Brototh, The Bigtopia

Post self-deleted by Brototh.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.