Legislative Branch

3/5 is acceptable. I also propose that we decide how many senaters we shall have for the region's legislature. I propse 1 senater for every 2 members as we have few members but when we surpass say 25-30 we go to a 1-5 ratio.

I'm not quite sure how that would work out. Who gets paired with who? How do we decide? What if not all the nations are on the forum (which is the case right now?)

I mean, I'm not saying any of your ideas suck (so sorry if it seems I'm raining on your - or anyone else's - parade). But I just wonder about these things.

Somehow, I think it would be simpler for every citizen to have a single vote. Thoughts?

Right. Maybe I am taking this a bit literally. But one vote per citizen is simple enough. Plus all the elections we would need to elect senaters would take a lot of time. we should still have the 3/5 majority you suggested right?

I would agree with that, obviously.

Of course, we're needing others to pitch in before we can put this all together.

Now, let's get back to another topic - the name of the body.

Great. I FreeConfederate propose the Title of "Hejira Commons". For it is for the common man/woman.

That's not a bad idea. Fairly distinctive, and easy to refer to.

I do endorse it myself.

And thank you. I do try.

I second the name "Hejira Commons".

Would anyone else like to discuss the name before we finalize other details? I'll give the remaining members 24 hours (as I won't be on much tomorrow myself.)

I suggest we move on to other details while we await confirmation of the title of the Region's Legislature.

I agree, especially since I actually don't know how long I'll be gone.

Let's discuss the term lengths of the Chairman - New Chadbourne and I were discussing this earlier in the thread. The two of us agreed on one-and-a-half-month terms, alternating with election times of the Delegate (three-month terms, in the preliminary discussion; we'll discuss the executive branch later on in the Convention.) Is anyone in disagreement, or does anyone have anything to add?

No disagreement here.

No arguments there. I propose however that the Vice-Chairman also be appointed every month and a half. But may be eligable to consecutive appointments should he/she perform his/her duties well. Considering the position is just a stand-in in case the Chairman is absent for an extended period. Or a personal advisor to the chairman.

I agree with giving the Chairman and Vice-Chairman congruent term lengths. I don't believe the Vice-Chairmanship should be subject to term lengths at all, because there's not much he/she is doing anyhow.

Reasonable. I also propose that the Vice-Chairman should be exempt in running for the office of Chairman. But be eligible in running for other elected offices. Just to throw something out there.

If the Vice-Chairman were to be appointed by the Chairman, he wouldn't need a campaign and thus would not be eligible for Chairman during that term.

If the Vice-Chairman were to be elected, though, I think he should run with the Chairman on the same ballot.

I say appointed. The Chairman is the more powerful office therefore needs to be elected, and this way the chairman can appoint someone trust worthy to act in his stead should he/she be absent.

I agree with you on this one. The Vice-Chairman should go through a confirmation process, though. 3/5 concurrence within 48 hours should do the trick, without (as I said earlier) interrupting the flow of other debates and votes.

(Also, totally off-topic, but you and I share a birthday. That's awesome.)

Agreed. I do believe we have about settled the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Next issue?

Now if only we could get John Henry Eden and Theranistan (the other signatories for the opening of the convention) on here...

But yes, I do believe we have settled this. So let's move on - the process of legislating.

I believe that if a bill does not receive three motions-to-vote within 72 hours of introduction onto the Commons floor, it should be removed from the floor. If it does, though, the bill should be taken as soon as possible for a 48-hour vote. 3/5 concurrence, as agreed upon earlier between FreeConfederate, The Shoree and I, would approve the bill.

(Note when I refer to concurrence, I do not mean 3/5 concurrence among people who voted; I refer to 3/5 concurrence among the entire Commons body.)

And the 3/5 concurrence in the entire commons body is all the region's citizens right?

Yes.

I believe, though, that there should be provisions for citizenship (activity first and foremost.) But perhaps we could pass that as the Commons's first bill.

I agree with that. We can settle details such as that with laws.

Yes, yes. Now back to the process of voting. I'll quote what I suggested earlier:

I believe that if a bill does not receive three motions-to-vote within 72 hours of introduction onto the Commons floor, it should be removed from the floor. If it does, though, the bill should be taken as soon as possible for a 48-hour vote. 3/5 concurrence, as agreed upon earlier between FreeConfederate, The Shoree and I, would approve the bill.

(Note when I refer to concurrence, I do not mean 3/5 concurrence among people who voted; I refer to 3/5 concurrence among the entire Commons body.)

Those who didn't vote are considered to have abstained.

The only change I would possibly make is to change the 48 hour period to 72 hour period. In order to allow a little more time for citizens to vote if they should be absent.