Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

the amendments have passed, we're voting on the main bill now

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1676812

I vote Aye after all, I'm still a bit ambivalent on the bill but I guess it doesn't hurt that parties are legalised. As for open member lists, I don't actually think it's too much of a problem if all parties play fair. A bit of a pain to maintain but they don't have to be up to date

Also, I forgot to mention, I acknowledge the motion.

The Political Parties Legalisation Act has passed 4-1-1 (Vedenmark Nay; Porfloxia DNV) Marvinville

We are now debating the Thaecian Rights Amendment https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1668885

and the Holiday Act https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1552573

Brototh

Nice, I like these bills. Where shall I begin?

Thaecian Rights Amendments, or (TRA) is a great amendment in my opinion. I commend Peeps for writing such proposal, but, here are my opinions on it; It is a great proposal, much needed I believe, nothing else to share here. Overall a good proposal and you can expect my vote to be an AYE.

The second proposal proposed by our madam PM herself is a great idea as well. I think it will keep the community of Thaecia running smoothly, nevertheless add some additional fun to the mix.

Chair Sevae

I support both bills.

The first is excellent, and I see no reason why it should not be put into effect.

The second is also great. It has a lot less significance, but it seems like a very reasonable proposal.

The first one is fine in my opinion, a pretty straightforward way to close some legal holes in the Constitution.

I support the second one's idea, though I feel that it goes a little too far to add flavor and makes some unnecessary additions to the lists of holidays and regional observances.

Of these:

-Unity day and wack tuesday are very similar, and I felt that the general democracy holiday alone would make more sense (unless there was something more specific to give to Unity day that'd give it more meaning than just a wack tuesday earlier in the year)

-August day is for the beauty of our region (?) which seems unnecessary to me and would be better filled by something else if we don't have enough holidays (maybe the day the constitution was ratified, or honoring an influencial thaecian? Alternatively, there could be a holiday to just celebrate all the nations who have worked to improve the region in Thaecia's government)

-The one I feel least strongly about is removing religious holidays. Many religions have many holidays, and given that we aren't observing them all, I don't feel the need to select a few for them to observe, particularly because some holidays that seem significant to some might be much less significant than other holidays that weren't included in the list to people who practice that religion (eg. Hanukkah is on the list, largely because of it being celebrated near Christmas, though Passover- a holiday that is generally thought as more significant, is not). Including religious holidays also means choosing which religion to include and exclude, which would be difficult to judge and not be great for people who's religions aren't included.

Here's the link to my ammendments:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1688581

We are now voting on the Thaecian Rights Amendment

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1668885

aye

as for Porflox's amendments, I oppose them simply because holidays will always be arbitrary. We'll never pass this law if we keep amending it in every chamber, and that's what it's heading for. There will always be someone that doesn't agree with all of the holidays or wants to add new ones

As the author of this bill I categorically deny the changes to the regional holidays as described on discord.

I suggest that either all of the regional observances are removed or none of them are removed. Either make this bill entirely about Thaecia, or include religious observances.

Aye

I oppose the amendments, for the simple reason that, like Sevae stated, we simply will never be able to come to a consensus if we continue to amend this bill.

Aye on the TR ammendments

The Thaecian Rights Amendment has passed 4-0-2 (Gifty, Creckelenney)

Let's vote on Porflox's amendments to the Holiday Act

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1688581

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1689846

Split and polished amendment to minimize RL references, with holidays being untouched (I plan to introduce an amendment to add the significance of dates at a later time).

All RL regional observances were removed (which was all of them), though I left the definition of regional observances more or less the same (it's a bit vaguer now because I felt the old definition was actively encouraging it, which I wanted to avoid) to give the President some leeway in proclaiming observances based on RL or general NS and not thaecia-specific events if they please.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1689846

Alright, I am tabling the amendments we were voting on. Now we are voting on the amendments to remove real life observances.

my vote is still Nay

Voting Aye because:

-It avoids packaging In Character events and Real Life events together

-This has the added side benefit that there won't be any need to keep expanding the regional observances list to include religious and other RL holidays by simply not setting a precedent of trying to include them as recurring regional observances in the first place

-It gives the President leeway to proclaim non-thaecia related events (Real Life or just general NationStates events) as one-time regional observances.

EDIT: Formatted to make it into a list for easier reading

Alright, fine. I change my vote to Aye. Let's just hope the House doesn't amend it again

alright, we've spent long enough on voting, and Gifty and Creck have been afk for some time already

the amendments thus fail 2-2-2

we are now voting on the main bill

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1552573

whoops, forgot!

the Holiday Act has passed unanimously 6-0-0 Brototh

next business will be announced shortly, I need to figure it out

Brototh

We are now debating the Basic Structure of Inter-Regional Chat

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1530064

For clarification, Thaecia has been accepted to be a member of Inter-Regional Chat, a discord server that has channels for NationStates politics and out-of-character discussions - a much more friendly and better organised alternative to the NationStates Gameplay server, and a server which, as you can see, four of the Pacific regions, Balder, and Europeia are founding members of. We now need to decide whether to ratify that treaty and thus our ascension into IRC (important to note that it doesn't impose any obligations on us, just expresses our agreement with that structure)

Andusre

Nothing to say here, I like the proposal, nevertheless, I believe it will be useful.

I have no qualms about this treaty. I support the proposal

[nation=noflag]Actias[/nation] has been inaugurated to the Senate of Thaecia.

- [nation=noflag]Rayekka[/nation]

Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia

Actias

I don't see why we shouldn't join. Also, congrats Actias :D

Actias

I have no objections to this treaty at this time.

We are voting on IRC

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1530064

The treaty has passed 5-0-2 (Porfloxia, Angypt)

Apologies, I've had a crazy couple of days. It will not become a pattern

We are now debating the repeal of the Treaty of Solidarity with The Communist Bloc. It can be found on the bottom of this dispatch

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1550753

Islonia and Brototh are invited to argue for the repeal of this treaty. If some of the evidence is classified they can feel free to communicate it in private

The Communist Bloc; my, don’t I love that region so dearly. Anyways, how would Thaecia benefit from this? Obviously we were gonna benefit from this when it was brought into discussion, therefore, how would we benefit from it now?

Islonia Brototh

Starting on April 13th/14th depending on where you live, Thaecia and several of her allies have entered a discussion regarding the validity of our respective treaty with The Communist Bloc. After much discussion, and talks between TCB and our group (represented by me), it was decided by Her Excellency the Prime Minister and myself to initiate the repeal of the Treaty of Solidarity.

Past this point, we are entering the realm of secrecy due to the nature of the talks. Proof sharing, as well as further discussion on this subject is to be done in a specific channel within the Congress Server.

Given the near non-existent opportunity to continue pursuing a mutually beneficial relationship with TCB at this time following a deterioration in our relationship, I'd support repealing the treaty.

Alright let's vote on the repeal

The treaty has been repealed unanimously

We are now debating the LR44 Recruitment Amendments

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1687924

and the Chamber Leader Election Reform Act

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1688198

I also motion for Unanimous Consent on the Speedy Trial Constitutional Amendment (literally just introduces a minimum time for cases to be considered)

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1685744

And for the Voter Accountability Act - this just allows the EC to publish voting results in certain cases

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1688156

I acknowledge both motions

Ok so; the clauses of this bill highlight the importance of its details etc. Which I am agreeable with. With the whole offense thing, I like it and I believe it will keep the regional telegram officers, (RTO), in line with their duties. As for the telegram proposal, I was not on board with the idea at first but then the Prime Minister made me aware of the nation-states mixups and whatnot and so I am on board with it as well.

Chamber elections proposal: I like this proposal, it is as said above, overall just makes chamber elections simpler. Now, I agree with this proposal because it just makes both the senate and house leadership elections simpler, and smoother so in return, we can get right to business.

I object to both, they need to be debated thoroughly. Not some off-brand RMB that is not even working properly as it is designed to.

Jeez this is a lot at once.

LR 044 amendments: There's no reason to oppose this, and so I don't. While I don't particularly like the idea of allowing Regional communications officers to use their powers for campaigning, allowing them to use said powers as long as they then send recruitment telegrams would be a considerable benefit to the region.

Chamber Leader Election Reform Act: Oh wow that's long (that's what she said).

All it really does is make LR 49 clearer and easier to understand

Though there is a problem with the numbering of section 3 (point 2 is removed and points 3/4 aren't renumbered to 2/3), that is largely unimportant and has no effect as to the function of the amendment.

Speedy Trial Constitutional Amendment: I object to the motion. While this would, on paper, be good in that the court would have a hard limit on when they would nee to deliver a judgment. In practice, however, there is often a valid reason for court business to be delayed.

Voter Accountability Act: I acknowledge the motion.

Vedenmark

We are now voting on the Amendments to LR 44

both UC motions failed

I am also submitting an amendment to the Chamber Leader Election Reform Act.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1693760

The only changes I have made were to allow for the normal allotted time for statements and questions, even if there is only one candidate. This will help legislators make an informed decision to abstain, or vote for or against the candidate, rather than just moving directly to voting without time for statements and questions.

I oppose Porflox's amendments. The reasoning he provides makes no sense in the context of this bill because it's supposed to shorten the procedure. If only one person wants to be Chair/Speaker that one person should be Chair/Speaker. I will submit my own amendment that allows someone to become Chair/Speaker immediately after candidacy declaration if nobody else declares. Because if you oppose someone being Chair/Speaker you should run against them and not just obstruct the chamber by voting against them.

EDIT: Here is my amendment https://www.nationstates.net/nation=sevae/detail=factbook/id=1693906

When voting, basically voting for Porflox's amendment is voting for the status quo, voting against both amendments is the middle ground that still has the, in my opinion, useless election period, and voting for mine would be voting for extreme simplification that is, in my opinion, logical considering there are no other candidates anyway. And please don't vote for both :p

Actias

I do agree with Seva that Profolox amends are a bit weird. Regardless of such, I like his amends (seva). Nothing much to say really.

If the goal is actually streamlining and simplifying, Sevae's amendment is the way to go.

I have amended my amendment so that it doesn't contradict the Constitution, and instead changes the Constitution to allow more freedom - instead of "election by a simple majority vote" the Senate and House now *select* their chamber leaders subject to procedures in legislation. This simplifies things even more

Sevae wrote:I oppose Porflox's amendments. The reasoning he provides makes no sense in the context of this bill because it's supposed to shorten the procedure. If only one person wants to be Chair/Speaker that one person should be Chair/Speaker. I will submit my own amendment that allows someone to become Chair/Speaker immediately after candidacy declaration if nobody else declares. Because if you oppose someone being Chair/Speaker you should run against them and not just obstruct the chamber by voting against them.

EDIT: Here is my amendment https://www.nationstates.net/nation=sevae/detail=factbook/id=1693906

When voting, basically voting for Porflox's amendment is voting for the status quo, voting against both amendments is the middle ground that still has the, in my opinion, useless election period, and voting for mine would be voting for extreme simplification that is, in my opinion, logical considering there are no other candidates anyway. And please don't vote for both :p

Vedenmark wrote:I do agree with Seva that Profolox amends are a bit weird. Regardless of such, I like his amends (seva). Nothing much to say really.

I disagree that chamber leadership needs elections need to be shortened. Even if there was only one candidate, I believe legislators should have the opportunity to object and vote against the candidate- which is why I removed it. The rest of the amendment is mainly streamlining the wording of the original law, which seems fine to me.

Amendment A:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1693760

Amendment B:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=sevae/detail=factbook/id=1693906

We are now voting on the above amendments

A : Nay

B : Nay

A: aye

B: nay

Voting this way because I feel that legislators should always have the opportunity to make the informed decision to reject a chamber leader.

Marv you have to stop.

Also Nay to both.

again Marv made you vote? wow

We are now voting on the main bill

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1688198

I vote Nay. This is a half-measure that I don't want to see passed. If people get to vote, they should get to debate. If they don't get to debate, they shouldn't get to vote.

Voting Nay because legislators should always have the opportunity to form make an informed decision on whether to support or reject a candidate for chamber leader and vote accordingly, even if there is only one candidate.

Abstain. I see the benefits of this bill, and I understand the opposition.

The bill has failed 1-4-2

Actias

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1694055

we are now debating the Voter Identification Act that recently passed the House

Can the Author elaborate on how this bill will be useful?

Brototh

I don't see the utility of this bill. Maybe we could write one to instead force the election commission to disclose the names of people who opt-in, but even then, I don't see the point.

we definitely need this amendment for reasons Brototh explained on the House floor. Election security would increase after this, and who knows which skeletons in the closet there are from, say, 2020

The Authors response to my question was sent to me via Discord by the leader of the house, channel; ns-politics

This statement is on the same bill but it is referring to the MPs though it is for here as well since it is the same bill.

"MPs, these amendments are necessary. The reason why is that it will make it possible to sue people for election fraud. The current definition is if someone votes with different nations in an election. (Ie casting two votes with two different nations that you control)

Say we prove that Alto and Marv are the same person. Without these amendments, we couldn't prove that they voted twice, and the election fraud would go unpunished

With these amendments, we could prove that Alto and Marv voted twice and sue them for voting twice. Which obviously defeats the whole purpose of democracy

This also doesn't violate privacy. It doesn't mean that someone has to have their vote revealed. Other innocent nations will still have their private vote. And we are still able to catch people that have violated the rules . Absolutely no privacy is lost whatsoever.

The list is automatically released for two reasons. One, to increase efficiency, so that we don't have needless bureaucracy of a vote while an election fraudster is running free. Second, in case the EC resigns, leaves, etc loses the sheet. If it is automatically released it is done during the election so we have no troubles with losing the voter list.

I urge MPs to pass this amendment. This is vital to the future of our democracy. There is no reason to vote against the bill in its current state." - Brototh

I loved this statement and it has determined how I will vote.

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