Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Democratized Peoples wrote:First, to Brototh. Do you foresee any reforms to the FA Council over the course of your service? Beyond that are you looking at any larger FA shifts or will you be keeping FA metaphorically steady as she goes?

The primary structural changes to the Foreign Affairs Ministry will be the ones outlined in the Prime Minister's election manifesto, for which he has a democratic mandate given by the people to carry out and I will be pleased to install diplomats as a function of the Ministry. Now what we will plan to do here is to have diplomats not just be mindless administrative drones as many people have criticised the concept of a diplomatic corps as, but I want to make sure that our region's citizens are more involved in the FA process. I plan to have diplomats collaborate with Communications on broadcasting foreign updates when possible, and will also be ensuring that diplomats are given a voice in the FA process. While the ultimate authority will still lie with the PM, Minister, and Council, I think that it is an important step to take to be actively asking for input from diplomats made up by the general public on assorted matters (where appropriate). I make no claim to turning the FAM into all-open doors or a direct democracy, but some drop in the closed doors mantra that we have seen for 3yr will go a long way to breaking down the feeling that the Ministry is gatekept.

In terms of the Council itself, I do seek to expand the composition of the Council if possible - I will not do so for the sake of it obviously, any expansion of the Council will be via meritocracy. The three newest members all were added because of their success in executive elections. Now this is not necessarily something I oppose: the WAD should, for the duration of their tenure at least, be on the FA Council as they are an important representation of Thaecia abroad. But the FA Council in any expansions in the future will be given to trustworthy and hardworking Thaecians, not just those who succeed in popularity contests. I also plan to reform the Council in that more advisory votes are held; a lot of our decisions have been taken either unilaterally or evolved from private compromises. FA is not a democracy and never will be, but I have already as minister-delegate called an advisory vote on a matter that we discussed briefly in the Council a few days ago. An important part of improving engagement with the system is taking that advisory vote from the Council, not just the integration of hard workers or public input.

To answer lastly; I have no plans for any major FA shifts and nor did I have any when I became the Prime Minister, yet within a few days, we took the unanimously praised action to cut relations with TBH. Major shifts in FA policy being planned prior to term sounds like an election issue to me, and considering neither candidate campaigned on making changes to our FA, I think that my vision here is pretty clear. For development in our Foreign Affairs though, I want to consolidate existing relationships as was done throughout my term as Prime Minister, collaborating with Culture and Defence on events that can be held with friends. We have already seen that events do not have to be big things like a festival or a major R/D operation, for instance, take the Hunger Games involvement with Aros Elyium. Existing relationships will be the priority here: we have learned our lesson from jumping at relations with regions like TCB, so treaties for example will be reserved to pre-existing strong relationships, be it socially, via gameplay, or R/D-wise. I would also be eager to repair any previously burned bridges with regions we perhaps are not so friendly with nowadays, if any such opportunity arises.

remember to vote aye to Toerana V

Toerana V

We are now voting to confirm the following:

Brototh for Foreign Affairs Minister

Pap Sculgief for Home Affairs Minister

Toerana V for Culture Minister

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote Aye to all three nominees

Pap Sculgief, Toerana V

I abstain regarding the confirmation of myself, and I vote aye to the two other candidates

I vote aye to all nominees.

All votes have been counted, I therefore declare:

Brototh has been confirmed as Foreign Affairs Minister (6-0-1)

Pap Sculgief has been confirmed as Home Affairs Minister (6-0-1)

Toerana V has been confirmed as Culture Minister (5-2-0)

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Relevant Parties]Marvinville

The Ambis[/spoiler]

Brototh, Toerana V, Marvinville

Ministerial confirmations:

We now move on to confirming the second set of Prime Minister Marvinville’s cabinet. This confirmation hearing is for:

Snowflame for Legal Affairs Minister

Islonia for Defence Minister

Isopi for Communications Minister

I hereby open the questioning & statement phase. The nominees have consent to talk in the chamber.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

New Central Iowa

I sponsor the ambis to speak during this debate

The Ambis

Hello! Thank you to NCI for sponsoring me. Anyway, a question for Snowflame:

The Ministry of Legal Affairs has historically been an idle one aside from the occasional court case which doesn't exactly happen too often. As minister, should we expect for you to maintain sort of the status quo with the ministry or are there any potential plans that you hope to implement?

Toerana V, The Sandbar

Saltmore wrote:Nay

Aye

Abstain

We are not in voting stage yet, therefore I cannot count these votes. This is the statement & debate phase.

I do actually also have a question for Isopi, which is much like Snows. Do you intend on bringing new things to the ministry, or just the updates? I don't care either way, I'm just interested to see.

The Ambis wrote:Hello! Thank you to NCI for sponsoring me. Anyway, a question for Snowflame:

The Ministry of Legal Affairs has historically been an idle one aside from the occasional court case which doesn't exactly happen too often. As minister, should we expect for you to maintain sort of the status quo with the ministry or are there any potential plans that you hope to implement?

I really like the copy and paste of the question I asked you a few months ago lol, and obviously I will answer it.

My answer would be no, I am not planning on maintaining the status quo, but let me first talk about the specific ministry. I am of the opinion that Cerd's time as Legal Affairs Minister was historic in the sense it gave the ministry more to do. Last I checked, you were given a badge, an award that Cerd came up with that was never seen before. After seeing all of the improvements and enhancements he made to the ministry, it quite literally made the ministry more important.

So, I am planning on maintaining and keeping all departments and activities from Cerd's era. I do have my own ideas that I want to implement.

The Prime Minister has expressed his intention to be more involved in giving his opinion when it comes to legislature affairs. I want to create a bill analysis department which has the intention of reading bills introduced, or that will be introduced, to Congress and writing professional, Executive legal opinions on the bills. I feel as if this maintains transparency when it comes to the Executive's beliefs when it comes to certain policies. I am hoping to do these updates weekly and allow Thaecians, new and old, who join the ministry the opportunity to write these professional opinions. If I could compare the idea to a different program, it would be similar to your WA recommendations that you do for many of the important Security Council and General Assembly proposals. I also feel as if this program will give the Legal Affairs Ministry something new to do while also providing another form of activity for Thaecians as a whole. Historically, the purpose of the Legal Affairs Ministry has been to represent the Executive on anything involving laws, which includes bills that have the potential to become law, and yet the ministry has never been pushed in that direction, and I hope to see it get more involved in that area.

Thank you for the question! If anyone else has a question, I would be happy to answer it.

Rayekka, Pap Sculgief, Marvinville, The Ambis

Quick question for Islonia - without giving away anything that could compromise the Thaempirial Army, what plans are you holding for the future of the army? Will we see more missions? Will we see a push to increase participation?

Islonia, New Central Iowa

Pap Sculgief wrote:What plans are you holding for the future of the army?

I want the army to:

(1) Stay entirely independent from any other organisation. Training our new recruit ourselves, holding as many operations alone, holding as many operations with our partners on our server, taking part in liberations spearheaded by Libcord (Liberation Discord) from our own server, and so on. All of this is already the case, I plan on continuing it.

(2) Have a guaranteed future. This means having active and skilled officers beyond myself capable of holding operations, and if necessary, take on the mantle of Tagus. Training of several soldiers for such a goal is well underway, something I hope will be complete within the end of the year.

(3) Be visible. Have all our operation advertised to the region, have it be propaganda. Show everyone what we actually do and have them share our sense of pride especially when we show huge numbers to important operations! This'll likely be done through dispatches relayed both on Discord and the RMB.

Pap Sculgief wrote:Will we see more missions?

The Thaempirial Army independently conducts at least two operations a week. Generally doing one small hold and a tag/detag/retag run. I find this current pace reasonable. Ohter than that you can sometimes see some Thaecian updaters in Libcord detagging when we don't feel like preparing it ourselves.

Pap Sculgief wrote:Will we see a push to increase participation?

I believe increased push is not the right term. The Thaempirial Army currently is one of biggest armies amongst the non-aligned and Independent regions of NS. To give an example, during the siege of Equestria last month we fielded 17 individual soldiers. To compare with other sizeable armed forces: the Europeian Republican Navy (ERN) fielded 14, The West Pacific Armed Forces (TWPAF) fielded around 9, the North Pacific Army (NPA) fielded around 6, the East Pacific Sovereign Army (EPSA) fielded around 5. On our attempted delbump of Declansburg, Thaecia fielded 9 updaters (on the same update) on par with EPSA, while the ERN brought 5. In addition, I currently count 30+ active duty soldiers part of the army and 9 assured additional militiamen, with 2 more on the fence (total of 11) and many more people I intend to ask.

It's fair to say that we have a sizeable chunk of the region as either an active duty soldier or as a militiaman. With this in mind, I believe that my current way of recruiting people into the army is one that functions very well as is. Thus what is needed is, as described above, more advertisement/propaganda through light shed on the army's activities.

Pap Sculgief

Congrats to all on your nominations. Just one question this time.

Isopi can you give some insight to how you plan on managing the Communications Ministry this term? Will the Thaecian Tribune finally be published or will it focus on executive announcements/developments?

Islonia wrote:snip

Thank you for your detailed answer, and I’m happy to say that I have no further questions

Islonia

Rayekka wrote:We are not in voting stage yet, therefore I cannot count these votes. This is the statement & debate phase.

Damn.

We are now voting on the following Ministerial Confirmations:

Snowflame for Legal Affairs Minister

Islonia for Defence Minister

Isopi for Communications Minister

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote aye to all candidates.

Aye to Islo, aye to Isopi, abstain to myself

Aye to all candidates

I can confirm the follow have been confirmed by the Senate:

Snowflame as Legal Affairs Minister (4-0-3)

Islonia as Defence Minister (6-0-1)

Isopi as Communications Minister (6-0-1)

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Relevant Parties]Marvinville

The Ambis[/spoiler]

We are now debating The Treaty of Nakasako between Thaecia and the Alstroemerian Commonwealths.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1799644

Prime Minister Marvinville, Foreign Affairs Minister Brototh & Author Islonia are permitted to talk during this debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

Islonia

I have no questions when it comes to the treaty. I am very familiar with the regions that make up the Alstroemerian Commonwealths and I see no harm with pursuing a treaty.

Islonia, Marvinville

The 12 hours minimum requirement for debates has passed, and with little said, we are now voting on The Treaty of Nakasako between Thaecia and the Alstroemerian Commonwealths.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1799644

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote Aye.

I move unanimous consent on the following bill. I have a private question to the PM pending on the treaty.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1801596

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I acknowledge the motion.

Aye, this would allow the military more freedom, although i would strongly suggest a simple rewrite of article II section V to decrease the amount of required informational time. (UC)

As for the treaty i also vote aye

Rayekka wrote:snip

Aye.

Democratized Peoples wrote:snip

I acknowledge the motion.

I acknowledge the motion

I acknowledge the motion

The Treaty of Nakasako has passed the Senate 5-0-2.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1799644

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Relevant Parties]Marvinville

Brototh

Islonia[/spoiler]

Brototh

We are now debating the 'Citizen Initiative Amendment'.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1603832

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I look forward to hearing Senator Democratized Peoples statement on the reasoning for this bill.

I will remind Senators that this UC is still awaiting some responses.

Democratized Peoples wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1801596

Brototh

Terrible bill! Completely ruins the point of a representative democracy! I urge all senators to kill this bill!

Brototh

I acknowledge the motion.

Going to be honest, I think the bill over-complicates a system that works just fine. Citizens are already consulted on moves to amend the the constitution, and the job of Congress is literally there to scrutinise the legislation (that includes the constitution) of the region, so why (unless we are moving to direct democracy) are we surpassing that. As well as that, the bill doesn’t allow for any considerations on amending the amendments further, which makes the process longer, as they will have to be resubmitted in their altered form.

Overall, I dislike the bill and plan to vote nay, unless there is a convincing argument not to.

I thank the Speaker for bringing this bill to the floor.

Senators, this bill is not a direct democracy bill. It is not a bill that relegates our Congress to a subordinate role, it does not alter our regional character as a proud representative democracy. What it does do is allow the people to tell the government that we have made a mistake without getting rid of otherwise good legislators and replacing them with perhaps worse ones. It allows the people to directly enact a statute through a process that is not easily triggered or passed. It means that the citizenry, which we should all agree is the source of the state's power, is allowed to take initiative and pass something they want passed without the occasional, perhaps occasionally necessary, mess that bringing a controversial bill through congress entails.

To expand on my point that this does not diminish congress, this bill does not stop the legislators from deciding that, if a popularly passed bill is not perfect or is so deeply flawed that it needs repeal, from changing or repealing it using our current processes. I cannot emphasize this enough, this bill does not disempower congress or create a radical-style direct-democracy. It allows a mechanism that numerous representative democracies allow as an additional check on the government. This is not a radical measure. It is a measure that preserves our system while letting the people have their say on a piece of legislation when they demand to have it. It will not be used as a replacement to our normal legislative process, just an occasional supplement to it.

The basic fact is that we are not perfect as legislators and it would be impossible for us to be perfect. There will be deeply unpopular bills that we enact and extremely popular bills that we, through either negligence or personal disagreements, that we fail to pass. That is normal and to an extent is needed to from congress in a democracy. But that doesn't mean that we should not provide a mechanism for the citizenry to, when they have sufficient will and effort, override us and do something themselves. It is hypocritical for us to claim an unlimited mandate from the people as a legislator while also saying that they should be unable to give their mandate to an individual piece of legislation. Let the people have a mandate.

In that vein, Senators, this bill will require the say of the people in the end. 60% of them must approve of it in order to pass. Let them have that say, if the people are content without initiative that will be their choice. But to say that this bill is an attack on institutions that should derive their authority from the public when all it allows is for the public to give their authority to an individual piece of legislation is fundamentally wrong. Don't buy into that fallacy. Let's pass this bill and give the people their choice.

This UC has received unanimous consent from the Senate.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1801596

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

Santa Marana

Brototh

Thank you for your statement, Senator.

If I am honest I am not a fan of this bill. I was intrigued to see other members thoughts and they appear to be similar to mine thus far. I feel this bill complicates things. We already have a petition system and recall system in place. Why complicate it further? After all, citizens can come to any legislator to get a bill sponsored. If no-one sponsors it or Congress votes against it, it’s the citizens right to vote for someone who will pass it. I feel this just adds bureaucracy that will hardly be used.

Pap Sculgief, Snowflame, Brototh

It's hard to see how legislation that does not add any governmental positions and the only work involved at all if it it passed will be the EC running a referendum on occasion adds any significant amount of "bureaucracy" to our region. It doesn't even complicate things, bills will continue to be passed, 95% of the time, by our normal process. Congress will go on just as before.

This bill does not add bureaucracy and it does not complicate things. It adds another path for bills to become law if the Citizenry wishes them to. It's that simple. I get ideological objections to this bill, I find them to be a little bit self serving but I understand them, but a suggestion that a two line change to our Constitution that perfectly fits within the framework of governmental staff we have now is not an example of the ever-expanding bureaucracy.

We are now voting on the 'Citizen Initiative Amendment'.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1603832

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I will be abstaining.

The 'Citizen Initiative Amendment' has been rejected by the Senate (1-3-3)

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

Brototh

We are now debating the 'Electoral Count Reform Bill'.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1798038

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

Sunipi may take part in the debate. I am also sponsoring current Electoral Commissioner Staff The Islamic Country Of Honour & Brototh to take part in the debate. I feel this is necessary given this bill aims to reform the way votes are counted, and their insight may be beneficial.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Post self-deleted by New Central Iowa.

Post self-deleted by New Central Iowa.

I know nothing about counting votes. I check validity, make slides, and do the other sorts of tasks. I'm nothing to do with this lmao

Upon further inspection I oppose this bill utterly. It introduces further weighted votes, so not all votes are equal to one. It complicates the counting system, meaning we will end up with even later results. It makes the EC's life harder for no more democracy, with the author saying it probably wouldn't change any results. It means we have to have a doctorate in maths to figure out NationStates results.

This is Thaecia, not California. This is silly from an NS perspective and silly fundamentally. All this will do is harm and delay the vote. As a Senator, I would vote against.

The Ambis

Would one of the authors be able to explain what this bill changes and provide an example?

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Senators, our current electoral system is the Single Transferable Vote (STV). Specifically, with the droop quota to calculate the quota for election and distributing surplus votes proportionally. Under this bill, the only change would be to the method of distributing surplus votes. I first had this idea when verifying the results of the November 2022 General Election, in my capacity as a Justice. I take a particular interest in electoral systems, and have conducted several STV elections before, and I was confused as to the current system. Real world systems that use STV have various different methods to calculate this, and the one that most closely resembles our system is known as the Gregory method. There are a few variations of this method, but they have the same principle: surplus votes are transferred at a fractional value. This is very similar to our current system. The difference is how we go about calculating it. In my opinion, it is easier to calculate results by tracking individual ballots as they are transferred, not proportions of a total, and so re-wording the law would be beneficial.

Brototh brings up another aspect of this process: weighted votes. With the current wording of the law, I'm not entirely sure whether or not weighted votes are expected or intended, and the current system could (though I may be wrong) have the effect of weighting votes anyway. Weighted votes are an essential part of the transfer system if you are going to use STV. It is an essential mechanism to prevent voters supporting popular candidates having more voting power than others. Without it, we see a blatant violation of the one person, one vote principle that's so important to a functional democracy.

For a real-world example, I'd recommend going through this election:

https://ballotbox.scot/councils/stv-explained

It uses Scottish STV rules, which uses the same transfer method as this proposal would use. Scroll down to the more detailed explanation.

Brototh wrote:It makes the EC's life harder for no more democracy, with the author saying it probably wouldn't change any results

It probably won't change results because it rewords the system to, in my opinion, make the process clearer for the EC and anyone else who is working with election results. I am confident that it would also reduce the errors made in calculation, as checking results would be much easier. We would avoid a scenario like last election where the wrong candidate was initially declared elected. This would strengthen our democracy, not harm it.

Brototh wrote:It means we have to have a doctorate in maths to figure out NationStates results.

Come on, really? Really unnecessary hyperbole that completely misses the point and demonstrates a misunderstanding of this change. You absolutely don't need a PhD to work out these results; volunteers do it in real life across the world. If you want a simple system, change from STV. This change does not make a significant difference to the complexity of calculations.

I’m going to be honest, I’ve just read through the Scottish election you linked and I see absolutely no difference between what we do compared to the Scottish system that this rewrite will make it like.

I am an ex-Electoral Commissioner and this is confusing the heck out of me. For this bill to become law, it will require a regional referenda. I worry that given the fact I don’t understand this, the likelihood is the electorate won’t either meaning they cannot make an informed choice on how to vote.

I am seriously swaying against this motion as while yes, STV is confusing and it takes time to count, I’m not sure trying to change that will resolve the problem. It’ll likely solve the current ones just to create new ones.

Snowflame

[quote=rayekka;50042569] I’m going to be honest, I’ve just read through the Scottish election you linked and I see absolutely no difference between what we do compared to the Scottish system that this rewrite will make it like.[/quote]

Hence why I was so surprised to find it so controversial. It’s very similar to the current system, but more correct. The current system is just odd, and worded weirdly. STV always transfers individual ballots - this bill just brings our system inline with standard procedures on conducting STV elections.

[quote=rayekka;50042569]I am an ex-Electoral Commissioner and this is confusing the heck out of me. [/quote]

You, and many others, are overthinking it. This is not a change to the fundamental nature of the system. It’s a small change to the wording of one section of LR49 that is inconsistent with how STV should be counted.

[quote=rayekka;50042569]For this bill to become law, it will require a regional referenda. I worry that given the fact I don’t understand this, the likelihood is the electorate won’t either meaning they cannot make an informed choice on how to vote.[/quote]

Uhhhh…why? A simple amendment to LR49 shouldn’t need a referendum to pass?

[quote=rayekka;50042569] I am seriously swaying against this motion as while yes, STV is confusing and it takes time to count, I’m not sure trying to change that will resolve the problem. It’ll likely solve the current ones just to create new ones.[/quota]

I’m not promising that the change will make the system less complex. I’m saying it will bring it into line with how STV should be done, which will make checking results easier (reducing errors), and also make it easier to explain it to those learning the system.

Sunipi wrote:Hence why I was so surprised to find it so controversial. It’s very similar to the current system, but more correct. The current system is just odd, and worded weirdly. STV always transfers individual ballots - this bill just brings our system inline with standard procedures on conducting STV elections.

You, and many others, are overthinking it. This is not a change to the fundamental nature of the system. It’s a small change to the wording of one section of LR49 that is inconsistent with how STV should be counted.

Uhhhh…why? A simple amendment to LR49 shouldn’t need a referendum to pass?

I’m not promising that the change will make the system less complex. I’m saying it will bring it into line with how STV should be done, which will make checking results easier (reducing errors), and also make it easier to explain it to those learning the system.

My apologies about my statement on the referendum, I got this bill mixed up with another one. You are correct in saying this only needs Congressional approval. I made a mistake.

So effectively this bill changes nothing except re-writes L.R. 049 to make it clearer?

Rayekka wrote:So effectively this bill changes nothing except re-writes L.R. 049 to make it clearer?

It should also gives the EC more mathematical freedom and makes audits/verification easier, but yes.

Rayekka

I am in favor of this bill. All it does is ensure that transfer votes are adequately weighted to ensure that on one's vote counts for more than one value.

In simple terms, this keeps our system where a vote transfers at the value at which the surplus occurs. If someone wins with 9 votes where the quota is 8 of the quota, votes transfer at .125 value. But then if they transfer again, they transfer at whatever the surplus is times .125. Those are already .125 value votes having already transferred, they shouldn't count as a full vote for the purposes of taking the transfer again.

I'm in support of this change and I think the Justice for bringing this to the floor.

Sunipi wrote:It should also gives the EC more mathematical freedom and makes audits/verification easier, but yes.

Thank you for explaining this.

I am going to keep the debate open for longer to allow Senators to ask questions.

Sunipi

We are now voting on the 'Electoral Count Reform Bill'.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1798038

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I will be voting Aye.

Having taken a close observation of the statements made, and by considering it personally, I will be voting aye

The 'Electoral Count Reform Bill' has passed the Senate 5-0-2. It will now be sent to the House - Santa Marana

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

We are now debating Amendments to LR 018 Rewarding Thaecians Contributions. This bill has already passed the House.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1801432

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I feel this bill is very necessary for regional security and implore Senators to vote for it.

Aye I agree with Rayekka's standpoint

Very necessary and simple amendment, those who have been proscribed don't deserve to be celebrated, I support

We are now voting on Amendments to LR 018 Rewarding Thaecians Contributions. This bill has already passed the House.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1801432

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote Aye.

The Amendments to LR 018 Rewarding Thaecians Contributions has passed the Senate 3-1-3. This is now sent to Prime Minister Marvinville's desk.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

We are now debating Judicial Framework Act Amendments.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1782571

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I personally see nothing wrong with this bill, but would like to know other peoples opinions.

Thank you Chairperson for bringing these amendments.

This act simply brings the JFA into compliance with a recent court ruling on appeals, and clarifies as a matter of statute rather than case law how our appeals process should legally work. It prevents confusion for those just reading the law registry rather than court precedent.

I'm also making an author amendment to the form in section III of the amendments, changing the words "lower court" to "court in question."

We will now begin voting on the bill:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1782571

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I vote aye

Post self-deleted by Snowflame.

The Judicial Framework Act Amendments has passed the Senate 4-1-2. This will now be sent to the House. Santa Marana.

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

We are now debating the 'Unnecessary Legislation Repeals Act'.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1798726

[spoiler=Senators]Snowflame

Rayekka

Democratized Peoples

Pradera

Pap Sculgief

New Central Iowa

Saltmore[/spoiler]

I would be thankful if the Author would explain why they believe these two laws should be repealed and provide examples of why.

Thank you Chair for bringing this legislation.

These two pieces of legislation are useless. The first one, the Contractual Obligations Act, has not been used except possibly for one instance a few years ago that others may have more knowledge on than I. But overall, we don't need contract law in Thaecia. It's complicated, it's messy, and it's unnecessary. Better to just get rid of it.

On that note, I have made an author amendment as I needed to get rid of the associated crime. Added in "Section II - Article VII Section 6 of L.R. 044 is repealed, following sections renumbered accordingly."

On the second piece of legislation, it's just completely unnecessary. If we want interns we can just make interns, legislating them is not needed. Mandating weird processes for a job that has no formal power is something that we shouldn't have done, and I'm pretty sure of saying that there has been no benefit from this legislation, and there never will be. Let's get rid of it, and if any of us want interns, hire some interns without an act.

Happy to answer any questions.

I completely disagree with the bill.

Firstly, just because a bill has not been used often, doesn't make it useless.

Secondly, throwing in repealing the internship bill randomly into this bill also doesn't make sense. That bill passed as a bipartisan effort across all parties to create a formalized process to make having an intern legal. We've had this debate many times before, a majority of people agree with having an internship bill. Not to mention, that bill became law very recently, so why try to repeal it now?

I encourage all senators to vote against the bill.

Rayekka, Brototh

Post self-deleted by Snowflame.

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