This is a page for the government simulation.

Please see the original blog post for more information.

List of Presidents.

Members

(Note: * denotes member of the TSPTF)

  • Mscoree
  • Memester
  • Spartian300
  • Octivian Marius
  • Bfoxius*
  • NonEuclidean
  • Tr0llis
  • Monster Pumpkin*
  • UglyTurtle
  • Reximus55
  • Feudalplague
  • Imp*
  • Local
  • FS*
  • Scraw*
  • Guns
  • Crim*
  • CourageousLife*
  • Viva*
  • Ninja
  • Scarlet 
  • Rcchang
  • Willster22
  • Blocky858
  • Andr3w777*
  • LightningLynx89
  • TheMaster001
  • Saturn120
  • Daxus Inferno
  • Toby
  • JoshTheRoman
  • Edge 
  • Krasnoyarsk
  • NicDonalds

Current Government

Executive Branch

  • President - UglyTurtle (Progressive)
  • Vice President - Toby2 (Progressive)
  • Prime Minister - FirstStooge (Labour) (By Appointment)

Legislative Branch

2014-09-28.7873287235521753337.svg
  Progressive Party: 16 seats
  Centrist Party: 18 seats
  Communist Party: 18 seats
  Labour Party: 4 seats
  Independent Party: 1 seats
  Conservative Party: 2 seats
  Squirrevolution Party: 1 seats

Registered Parties

Conservative Party

Conservative Party
Chairperson Lordganon (in absence, Fed)
Leader Fed
Chancellor open
Youth Chairman open
Founded 2012
Preceded by TSPTF supremacy
Headquarters right this way
Student wing Students of Tradition
Youth wing Heirs to the World
Ideology Conservatism
Statism
Corporatism
Reactionary politics
Authoritarianism
Official colors Prussian Blue (003153)
Red (FF0000) (unrecognised by the Party)
Members in the TSPTF
1 / 40
Members of the Senate
2 / 60

Called "fascists" and "dictators" by some, the Wiki Conservative Party represents the old ways and practices of the institution. Controlling one hundred percent of the TSPTF floor [citation needed], the Conservative Party is the most powerful political party in terms of seats in the house.

Known Members

  • Lordganon (I'd assume)
  • Fed
  • Katholico
  • Saturn120
  • Everyone else post below!



















Progressive Party

Progressive Party
Chairperson UglyTurtle
Founder Mscoree
Manager Toby2
Founded 2014
Preceded by Liberal Party
Nullification Party
Ideology Liberalism

Libertarianism
Progressivism
Populism

Anti-Censorship
Official colors Teal
Members in the TSPTF
2 / 40
Members of the Senate
16 / 60

The Progressive Party is a popular political party considered one of the major contemporary parties today. created in January 2014 through the merger of the Liberal Party and the growing Nullification Party to create a stronger progressive and reformist party, the Progressive Party became the dominant party following the first election, in which its presidential candidate Mscoree was elected, as well as twenty one out of forty seats in the senate.

The party's platform is generally based upon the beliefs of several leading ideologies, the main ones being ideas of libertarianism and progressivism. The party supports the Idea of Progress, which states that advances in technology, science, and social organization can produce an improvement in the human condition, and that the wiki most advance likewise to meet the demands of a growing community. The party also emphasizes the importance of freedom of choice and political freedom, seeking to protect and promote the general welfare of all works of alternate history.


Goals

  • We strive for proportional representation in wiki affairs.
  • We promote respect for freedom of speech relating to political affairs.
  • We seek the progressive expansion and revision of wiki rules as the wiki advances.
  • We seek to promote the general welfare of collaborative projects and solo efforts, and fight for the protection of allowed timelines, map games, and other works.


Known Members

  • Mscoree
  • Ratc3333
  • Memester
  • Spartian300
  • NonEuclidean
  • Tr0llis
  • Monster Pumpkin
  • UglyTurtle
  • Feudalplague
  • SwankyJ
  • Toby2
  • TechnicallyIAmSean
  • Everyone else post below!

Accolades
Accolades are given out by members of the party. Some accolades are independent of the party.

  • Progressive Merit Award - For thoroughly serving the party and remaining active in the simulation. May only be awarded to a registered progressive member, as chosen by the reigning president.
Barnstar2.png
  • Medal of Eternal Revolution - For the highest act of valor and sacrifice in the name of reform and the revolution. May only be handed out to an individual who receives a 2/3 vote among party members. Recipient does not have to be a registered member of the party.
Barnstar1.png

Labour Party

Labour Party
Chairperson Imp (probably)
Head of Youth Wing (Up for Contest)
Head of Student Wing Guns
Founded 2014
Student wing Labourous Loony Party
Youth wing Labourous TSPTFers and Co. Party
Ideology Progressivism
Populism
Reformism
Socialism
Official colors Orange
Members in the TSPTF
5 / 40
Members of the Senate
4 / 60

We believe in stuff. Most members are respected individuals within the community who believe in values of the party. We hope to help the wiki grow in size and help decide many important matters which affect the wiki as a whole. Comprising of a significant number of TSPTF members, our opinion is often heard and respected.

Goals

  • We seek to ridicule trolls and enact harsh policies against them for the safety of the wiki
  • We seek to uphold rules and reform them when necessary
  • We seek to make the wiki experience fun and interesting
  • We seek to help promote a feeling of community within the users
  • We seek to give all users a voice (regrettably that does include some of the more unfavourable users)
  • We seek to help expand all content of the wiki in a fair manner, ensuring brilliant timelines are not turned into cheap map games
  • We seek to uphold the right to exercise sense of humour in these troubling times

Known Members In order of joining -

  • Imp
  • FS
  • Scraw
  • Guns
  • Crim
  • CourageousLife
  • UT (Alliance Member)
  • Anyone else post below!

Centrist Party

Centrist Party
Facilitator Reximus55
High Archon of Centrism Bfoxius
Deputy Chairman Sine dei gloriem
Founded June 7, 2014
Preceded by Progressive Party (split off), Independent Party (spiritual successor to a certain extent)
Headquarters Check it out!
Student wing Centrist Student Alliance
Youth wing Young Centrists
Ideology Non-partisanism

Anti-censorship
Classical Liberalism
Centrism
Libertarianism

Compromise
Official colors Yellow
Members in the TSPTF
2 / 40
Members of the Senate
18 / 60

Partisanism - decrying the Conservative, the Progressives, or the Labour Party - has fueled this Government since its inception. That very fuel ran dry and left the Government in a state of disuse for almost five months.

The Centrist Party believes that we cannot have a TSPTF Party, an Anti-TSPTF Party and an Anti-Ms Party. We need unity in order to allow the government to change the very fiber of the Wiki, and the Centrist Party offers this Unity.

Senators of the Party may vote as they feel will better the Wiki as a whole -- they own the Party, not the other way around! Please do not ask what the Party's stance on an issue is if you are one of our Senators -- we gave you a vote in the Senate so you can vote as you wish! (I, Rex, am willing to tell you how I feel but that is purely my opinion)

Goals

  • Plausibility, but no tyrannical use of the ASB-Biased tag
  • Plausibility within Map Games, but no limitations of Creativity
  • Acceptance of ASBism not as an insult, but as a tag to categorize a page.
  • Three Active Brass
  • Ban Reform
    • Less Harsh Bans for non-offensive, non-sockpuppeting "crimes"
    • No unilateral Bans for minor infractions
    • Reform (to a certain extent) on sockpuppeting rules
  • Community Timelines and Activities
    • Days After Chaos
    • Wiki Newspaper
  • Activity within the TSPTF and Retirement once Duties are no longer performed
  • Separation of TSPTF and Map Games
  • TSPTF nominations based upon merit and ability to perform duties, not necessarily Edit Count or Popularity
  • Finding common ground between the more and less radical elements of the Reform Movement to have the biggest impact on the whole of the Wiki

Known Members

  • Reximus55 (Founder)
  • Bfoxius (Co-Founder)
  • Sine dei gloriem (Co-Founder)
  • CookieDamage
  • Willster22
  • I am that guy
  • LightningLynx89
  • The Great Rcchang of Luxembourg
  • Daxus Inferno
  • NicDonalds
  • JoshTheRoman

Communist Party

Communist Party
Chairperson SkyGreen24
Secretary Chairman Monster Pumpkin
Youth Chairman Blocky858
Founded 2014
Headquarters Castellum Veritatis
Student wing Red Students
Youth wing Young Comrades
Ideology Communism
Marxism
Titoism
Council communism
Leninism
Luxemburgism
Official colors Dark Red (A00000)
Red (FF0000)
Members in the TSPTF
3 / 40
Members of the Senate
18 / 60

Goals

  • To all our comrades the treatment they deserve
  • May all our comrades be judged by their current abilities, not by glory gained in times that passed
  • A friendly community shall be supported, for it is a basis of a peaceful wiki
  • To all according to their needs and abilities. Before one acquires power, he must have ability.
  • The TSPTF will be chosen among the active, contributing and fair comrades for they are the only ones who deserve the power.

Known Members Comrades

  • SkyGreen24 (Founder)
  • Edgeofnight
  • Blocky858
  • FirstStooge (fellow traveler)
  • TheMaster001
  • Local Mafia Boss
  • Andr3w777
  • Ozymandias2
  • Octivian Marius
  • Fed
  • MP
  • Callumthered
  • Steph
  • Nlenhardt
  • David Rain
  • EiplecOco (Fascist Approved)
  • Likercat

Other Organizations

Extremist Brotherhood

Extremist Brotherhood
Chairperson Vivaporius
Founded 2014
Ideology Authoritarianism •

Reactionary •

Extremism
Official colors Black
Members in the TSPTF
1 / 40
Members of the Senate
0 / 40

We in the Brotherhood seek to maintain the status quo. Though somewhat authoritarian, and extremist as our opponents call us, we are simply trying to prevent the great unknowns from sweeping us into the unending abyss of ASBism. We use black to symbolize our taking on the darkness of implausibility.




Independent Party

Independent Party
Founded 2014
Preceded by Non Alignment Movement
Official colors Purple
Members in the TSPTF
0 / 40
Members of the Senate
1 / 60

Formed as the successor to the non alignment movement, the independent party represents the ideals of a group of people unwilling to dedicate to one of the major parties. Ideology wise the Independent Party mostly consists of Progressive-leaning voters.

Purple is the color of peace, and a combination of the colors of Red (Conservative) and Blue (Liberal), meaning that regardless of previous background, all are welcome in the pursuit of peace, happiness, and free thought. The Independent Party works toward the old Non-Aligned Movement's goals plus some more.

Goals

  • Mutual respect for each other's right to speech and opinion, even when it differs from yours
  • Mutual non-aggression: One does not have to right to deny others to user rights except of spamming, sockpuppeting and advertising real world products on the wiki (chat not included)
  • Mutual non-interference in each other's TL's, except when it is empty
  • Equality of all wikians and mutual benefit
  • Peaceful co-existence
  • Respect for others' opinions, no matter how farfetched they seem
  • Treating the wiki like the wiki should be, not an ideological warzone, a place for timelines, map games, etc.
  • In-game (Map Game) disputes not carrying over into the chat.

Known Members

Republic of the Eagle

The Republic of the Eagle is a branch of the Progressive Party and political organization that uses more extreme tactics to bridge the gaps between previous organizations.

The Squirrevolution Party

The Squirrevolution
Chairperson Guns The Glorious
Rcchang of Luxembourg
Founded 2014
Ideology Squirrels •

Freedom in the Wiki •

Freedom in Chat  •
Official colors Teal
Members in the TSPTF
0 / 40
Members of the Senate
1 / 60

The Squirrevolution party aims to overthrow restrictions on squirrels, as well as declaring an "open season" on idiotic trolls. Led by Guns, they are generally considered highly eccentric and awesome. While many of them are highly experienced users, none are members of the TSPTF, some because they declined nominations, others because they were considered too brutal to be allowed in. We sympathize with the Labours, but believe that most of them should be executed. We also agree with the Communists, but believe that they too should be executed for not being far enough right on certain topics, such as squirrel usage. We would also like to say that we are serious, we are not joking; we may be funny, but the issue of the squirrels on chat is a major one.

FORTH THE SQUIRREVOLUTION!

Goals

  • Promoting the usage of squirrels in chat.
  • Fighting for freedom and fun throughout the wiki.

Known Members

  • Guns
  • Rcc (I think)
  • Everyone else post below!


The Anarchist Party

The Anarchist Party
King: Scarlet Outlaw
Lord:
Duke:
Count:
Earl:
Founded 2014
Ideology Anarchism •

Secularism • Antimilitarism • Individualism • Isolationism •

Moderate Rexism •
Official colors Orchid
Members in the TSPTF
0 / 40
Members of the Senate
0 / 60

The Anarchist Party is a party founded by user Scarlet Outlaw to promote the introduction of anarchist values in the government simulation. The party calls for the abolishing or heavy diminishing of institutions such as government and religion in order to protect the rights of the individual. The Anarchist Party was largely formed out of the aftermath of the Rexism movement, and follows similar values in some cases.

Goals

  • Promoting individual freedom through the creation of stateless societies in which government cannot interfere in the rights of the people.
  • Further personal liberties unhindered by government.
  • The diminishing of religion in society and the possible introduction of a secular state.
  • The reduction of militant force and powers exercised by the TSPTF, as well as an overall policy of isolationism in which admins cannot interfere in rights of the user.

Known Members

  • Scarlet Outlaw

Legislation

Passed

Extension Act

Voting Ammendment

  • Proposed by: Local
  • Text: Following the Controversial result in the January Election, I propose that the Senate and Presidential Votes are seperated.
  • Votes:
    • Aye
    • Nay
    • Discussion
      • So this means that in future elections there will be three lines instead of two. Mscoree (talk) 22:40, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't. It means that the votes for Senate and President are seperate, not combined. Still 2 lines, not 3. Praetorian Flag.png RoG Flag.png "Sleeps with the fishes" "An Offer you Can't Refuse." "Make a wish. It'll be your last" Falklands Flag.png
      • Yes, so three lines in total. Before there was on for seante/president. 
      • No. There will be fave candidate and fave party. The fave party vote ONLY counts for senate. The fave candidate vote ONLY counts for president. TWO lines.         Centriflag.jpeg   Flectere si nequeos superos- Acheronta Movebo!  01:12, January 10, 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah so three in total. The two you just descibed and the vote for president. Mscoree (talk) 03:01, January 10, 2014 (UTC)
      • HOW IS THAT THREE IN TOTAL??? The Fave Candidate IS the vote for President! 
      • Vote for president, vote for senate, vote for party. Three lines. Mscoree (talk) 01:12, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • The vote for party is the same thing as the vote for senate? It's combined into one line... You have candidate- vote for president and party- vote for senate. TWO LINES.
      • Ms. It would have the same amount of lines.:
        • President Vote: Mr Example
        • Senate Vote: The Example Party
      • AND THAT'S IT. Praetorian Flag.png RoG Flag.png "Sleeps with the fishes" "An Offer you Can't Refuse." "Make a wish. It'll be your last" Falklands Flag.png
      • Thank you, Local.
      • It needs to be three, like below. Mscoree (talk) 01:05, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
        • President Vote: Mr Example
        • Senate Vote: The Example Party
        • Favorite Political Party: Example Party
      • There is currently a separate bill to decided this two or three line issue. Please note that this vote is only to separate president and senate votes. Mscoree (talk) 01:28, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Establishment of a Head of Government(Head of the Legislature)

  • Proposed by: LxCaucassus
  • Text: The Position of Head of the Legislature will be established as the person who can best maintain the confidence of the Senate, the Prime Minister, First Senator, or whatever name we decide to give the position will be as a rule of thumb the leader of the Majority or Plurality factions or coalition. (in further text, the Head of the Legislature shall henceforth be refered to in thsi bill as the Prime Minister or the PM
    • The PM is appointed by the President, however, the president may not appoint someone as the Prime Minister if he or she can not maintain the confidence of the Senate, as the senate must approve of the apointment.
    • The PM shall maintain his position untill he or she can no longer form a governement. 
    • The PM should be the head(leader) of a Party or an Independant candidate. While it is not impossible for a Senator that is a member of a party to become PM, it would not come as a surprise if he/she can not form a governemenet when asked. However it is much more feasable for Independant members to become leaders of coalitions, dont be so quick to dismiss them.
    • If, after the Election, no one faction has control of a majority of the Senate(Hung PArliment in Brittish terms, Minority Governement in canadian), Then the first person that should be asked by the president to form a governement is the former prime minister(the former PM has "first dibs" on forming a coalition). If, however, the former PM fails to either form a coalition, or have the rest of parliment not vote against his appointment, then the President should ask the next person he/she believes to have the largest chance of forming a governement( usualy the leader of the Plurality/Majority party or coalition leaders) to do so.
    • During a Majority Governement, where a party has control of more than 50% of seats, then the president must appoint the leader of the majority party as doing what is stated above, if the incumbent is defeated, is simply unnecessary redundancy.
    • If, in a Minority situation(hung parliment), the PM looses a confidence motion, then the President may either look to the oposition, or call a legislative election. However, in the case that nobody can maintain the confidence of the house, an election must be called to reshuffle the balance of power in the Senate in hopes that a party can, after the election, gain the confidence of the Senate.
  • Votes:
    • Aye
    • Nay
    • Discussion
      • Interesting idea. So this new position is basically the speaker of the house (I feel that would be a more appropriate name), and leads the senate, if I understand correctly. 01:13, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • Kind of, but the speaker of the house moderates discussions, calles votes, etc... and can just be some random guy that has the tiebreaking vote. The Prime Minister would be the "Leader" of the Senate and is responsible for, well, taking care of the Senate and leading comprimises and meeting with the opposition and esentialy everything. And I want to shy away from Speaker of the House as a name becasue I want to distance this whole thing from the American System, as in the US the President acts as both Head of Governement and Head of State. In the future as this whole governement simulation evolves, we should add responsibilities related to both the President and PM and see them as co-rulers, one representing the legislature(and perhaps parties that do not put out candidates) and rerpresenting the past vote...I hope everyone unbderstood what I mean... -Lx (leave me a message)Azarath Flag.png 01:41, January 11, 2014 (UTC)
      • After talking in chat with Lx I have agreed to the creation of this new position; a prime minister who leads the senate. Mscoree (talk) 02:07, January 11, 2014 (UTC)

Party Representation Clause

  • Proposed by: Mscoree
  • Text: With a proposal already created to separate the presidential and senatorial vote, there currently is a disagreement as to whether or not there should be three lines or two, meaning whether or not we should continue mixed member proportional. Having a vote for party, not just president and senate, would mean that the little parties would still get representation, encouraging political diversity and eliminating the spoiler effect. We propose therefore that we should use three lines. 
  • Votes:
  • Discussion
    • I suppose I am just confused as to what this vote does? Does an "aye" vote have the effect of having 3 lines, and a "nay" vote have the effect of having 2 lines? Reximus | Talk to Me! 05:00, January 16, 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes. Mscoree (talk) 11:37, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

Registration Act

  • Proposed by: Mscoree
  • Text: New procedures will be created for the registration of official parties. All parties founded after the passing of this legislation will require a minimum of five members, as well as a fully developed section on the page and beliefs section. New parties will also require three days of graduation period before being officially registered. Once registered, official parties will be allowed to nominate candidates for president, while other organizations may not.
  • Votes:
    • Aye:
    • Nay:
      • I vote no with rights. While not sure if I still have a vote, considering the fact that I was (and still am, technically) a Senator, I am opposed to this legislation because it prevents last minute political shifts to be recognized. For example, the merger between the Libs and the Nullies was under 3 days before the election (if I remember correctly) and would not have been recognized, thereby disallowing the Progs from running a candidate. Additionally, the wording of this legislation implies that a candidate must be nominated for the Presidency, something I completely disagree with. Partisanship is being embedded in this seemingly harmless piece of legislation. Reximus | Talk to Me! 02:15, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • Willster22 Willster22 (User talk:Willster22) 02:47, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • I'am a nay sayer, LightningLynx89
    • Discussion:
      • This act is just setting up official rules for the simulation. Before this the new parties might not have been recognized at all, but now you'll have an actual thing you can point to and say that you should. Previous registered parties are in the past. This one aims to get more in, since we have a weeks time to do so. And partially I am trying to prevent people making a party the night of the election. To Andrew, this isn't telling people who to vote for at all. This is just setting up rules for recognizing the new parties, so if anything it makes less votes for older ones. Mscoree (talk) 13:01, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • Question, if this law were to pass would this satisfy the "as well as a fully developed section on the page and beliefs section." part? SkyGreen24 - Join the party 13:23, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, if this passed then both the Centrists and the Communists would be passed, rather than having to wait to some unknown time. Mscoree (talk) 13:36, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • If that is the truth (and it better be) you have a comrade's vote if it counts for anything. SkyGreen24 - Join the party 13:52, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • Rex how is this partisanship? This act benefits your party most of all. Also wtf do you mean by a "candidate must be nominated for the Presidency", Rex? Were you under the impression that we should be able to jokingly vote for people like 'Mickey Mouse' on our ballet? Tr0llis (talk) 15:31, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • This doesn't exactly force anyone to candidate, it says your party will be able to nominate candidates, not forced. However, Rex, your party is unaffected by this law since it was created before this passes. This also regulates the creation of small parties, which would be of no use in the big picture. It's more like a law that is created to make this more realistic. I.E. banning you from creating one-man parties, although current ones (Viva I'm lookin at you) would still stay. SkyGreen24 - Join the party 15:57, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • Rex preaches change and criticizes the progs for getting nothing done, then votes no on a pro-Centrist act...Tr0llis (talk) 18:01, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
      • Here are the specific reasons I am voting no - the specific wordings that make me feel uncomfortable. By saying partisanship, I do not mean the parties blocking any real legislation, I mean the legitimization of a party system. You see, I feel that parties are just vehicles, but once its mandatory to have a party, they stop to serve their purpose and are just roadblocks. Here is what I am opposed to -- "Once registered, official parties will be allowed to nominate candidates for president, while other organizations may not." Why must you bee nominated by a political party in order to run for the Presidency. Anyone should be able to run. Plain and simple. This legislation embeds the use of political parties, thereby making them roadblocks. Additionally, this is not Centrist legislation. The Party, by its founding principles, will never endorse or condemn any piece of legislation. Reximus | Talk to Me! 00:45, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
      • The Centrism Party at work:
        • Preaches reform...votes no on reform
        • Preaches against partisanism...is partisanism by blocking reform
        • Preaches compromise...refuses to compromise
        • Preaches discussion...doesn't discuss new act
      • I would have thought the Centrist party would be a lot different. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk) 02:03, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
      • I think this act is more so we don't have parties that are created for 'teh lulz' and other silly reasons. However, Non, you shouldn't be bashing on the Centrist. Just because they want reform, doesn't mean they want the wrong kind of reform. And they kind of are trying to compromise, as they only oppose a portion of the act. Finally, I do believe Rex's paragraphs are in fact a discussion. In conclusion: Read Rex's paragraphs through one more time before you try to undermine him. SkyGreen24 - Join the party 20:08, June 9, 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Sky. Firstly, its the Centrist Party, not the Centrism Party. Secondly, this is not reform. This is changing procedural rules and instituting our own regulations upon this relatively free political system. I am opposed to how this limits political parties -- in Russia, the PRC and Nazi Germany you have to register your political party and submit it to governmental regulation. The precedent this piece of legislation sets is that the government can regulate political parties. I, personally and not acting as Chairman (well, Facilitator) of the Centrist Party, strongly disagree with this precedent. Is reform truly a good thing when it is tightening the freedoms of the people? That is just playing into the hands of the powerful interests. How is it partisan for me to vote no on a piece of legislation? As I have made clear -- each member of the Centrist Party can, and does, vote on their own accord. I am but one of our party's members. I have clearly shown willingness to discuss the new act, whether here or on chat. I have actually discussed it more than you have -- all you have done is insult me and/or the Centrist Party for your partisan gains. Same with Tr0llis. Please, discuss the issue, not the way I vote on any given issue. I have also shown willingness to compromise by pointing out exactly what I feel needs to be fixed, even at a time where the legislation was seeming to be voted down. I leave with a closing thought... Is reform a good thing when it restricts the ability of people to organize to bring about positive, common sense change??? Reximus | Talk to Me! 03:15, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
      • This is ridiculous... Sine dei gloriem "Ex Initio Terrae" (talk)
      • it allow too many minor parties, which will later lead to either Special Interest groups or Break off parties (ie TEA Party). I would rather have not a slew of minor parties which simply to get there specific point out, when branching and adapting to a larger one will allow individuals to grow more open minded towards others, straying away from narrowed points of view, and there for broader aspects of intelligence. SwankyJ (talk) 04:50, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Failed

Senate Expansion Act

Proposed by: Likercat

Text: Because the Senate is very small, with only 70 sears i think i propose to expand the seats of the Senate to 150 or higher

  • Votes: 
    • Nay:
    • Aye:
  • Discussion:

This act is poorly worded and unspecific. It doesn't touch on any of the actual working of the senate currently. Right now the number of seats is progressive, meaning they change depending on the vote. There is no set number, which is the actual issue here. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk)

Lower House Act

Proposed by:  Likercat

Text: In order for the Goverment to be more stabilized and organized i propose a Lower House, the seats should be no more than 200, it should be made  before 1 month, or else the proposal will be dropped, it would be in a form like the House of Commons and only registered parties may be in the Lower House, the Lower House shall be named by the Honourable President or the Honourable MS, the founder of the Goverment Simulation, it shall be like the Senate but larger, it shall also have Crossbenchers, if "Aye" will be more than "Nay" it shall be passed and the Lower House shall be made officialy as a part of the Goverment Simulator, if "Nay" wins the proposal shall be dropped immediatly. and shall not go into effect.

Votes;

Discussion:

  • Please tell me this is not poorly worded?. ~Likercat
  • Although I don't have a vote as the president, I would like to remind everyone that this is quite unneeded and merely an attempt to make this government simulation more simillar to Bilateral ones. I guess I perhaps retain the right to veto this, but for now I just suggest that people vote nay.
  • Fine, all of my proposad acts have been nay voted, thererfore i will not make any more ~Likercat

Proposals

Registration Act Amendment

  • Proposed by: FirstStooge
  • Text: In order to preserve the Wiki democracy and right to create a political party, new procedures will be created for the registration of official parties. All parties founded after the passing of this legislation will require a minimum of five members, as well as a fully developed section on the page and beliefs section. Parties that having less that five members but has an intention to participate in the election may form a coalition with other minor parties in order to fulfill the requirement of membership. The minor parties that form a coalition may contested in the election as the single candidate list. New parties or coalitions of parties will also require three days of graduation period before being officially registered. Once registered, the parties or the coalitions of parties that fulfill the requirement will be allowed to nominate candidates for president.
  • Votes:
  • Discussion
    • Is this amendment an effort to make coalitions official? What is being changed here? Mscoree (talk) 12:39, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, yes. I just want the mention of coalition of parties to be more clear than in the original act. FirstStooge (talk) 11:49, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Squirrel Act

Proposed by: Saturn120

Text: In order to prevent more spam on chat, the use of the squirrel use must be lessened. All users post more than 3 squirrels in a day after the passing of this legislation will be disciplined. All users who post 4 squirrels will be given a warning. The 5th squirrel will result in a kick. And the 6th one results in an 2 hour chat ban. The user must follow these rules once a day, then reset. However, if squirrels lontinue over a period of multiple days, actions may be taken farther. Once passed, the use of the squirrel will (hopefully) decrease in chat.

  • Votes:
  • Discussion
    • I think having a daily quota is a bit extreme and would be hard to keep track of. Perhaps if they are posted in rapid succession instead. Mscoree (talk) 19:13, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

Organizational Act

Proposed by: Blocky858

Text: In order to successfully organize the political party system, we need to create the same party positions in each party to prevent inequality. The following positions shall be in each party: Chairman, Secretary Chairman, Chairman of Students, Chairman of Youth. The title of the position is entirely up to the party administration. However, it must be of equal power. This means the Chairman of Youth for the Communist party's title is different from the Chancellor of Youth for [insert party name here]'s title, but have the same amount of power.

  • Votes:
  • Discussion
    • Since the registration act already says new parties need 5 members to be recognized I think it would be only reasonable to add this as well. Not in order to limit other parties, but this way parties don't just have a leader and his followers. It could be considered a decentralization of party power. FirstChairmanLogo(Sky).pngSkyGreen24 - Join the partyFirstChairmanLogo(Sky).png 09:25, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
    • Now, I know this discussion appears somewhat closed, but please allow me to get my thoughts in on this matter that requires delciate thought... Why should all parties be FORCED to have certain positions? If a party believes that these positions ought not be funded by a party, then why should a party, in order to maintain its legal status, have to comply with this regulation. Furthermore, the positions make little to no sense to me. What is a Chairman vs a Secretary Chairman? And isn't the Chairman of Youth the same as the Chairman of Students? Additionally, since the act doesn't spell out "equal power," how are we to ensure that these positions have equal power? Do we just have to listen to the first party that assigns a particular position? I am sorry, this is just WAAAY to flawed of a piece of legislation for my tastes; vote as you may, but please read the text critically before blindly signing Aye. Reximus | Talk to Me! 11:47, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

Term Act

Proposed by: Mscoree.

Text: In order to create a more timely schedule for future elections within the government simulation, and to prevent a loss of interest over time, I propose that we decrease the term length, to one month.

  • Votes:
  • Discussion
    • I support this idea, not only will people not lose interest in this glourious goverment simulation but it will also keep a sheldue, which i think is very inportant Poland Stronk! 19:33, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
    • I concur with this policy because it would be able to keep involvment up but would also prevent us from having issues when the Simulation is rebooted every 6 months and new parties spring from nowhere and go nowhere. This will hopefully allow for better continuity and responsibility, as well as making legislation more important as there is less time between terms. Reximus | Talk to Me! 19:04, September 25, 2014 (UTC)
    • I propose we specify the term date to simply 30 days, rather than a month, but I'm still voting Aye. -Cookie

Vacancy Act

Proposed by: SkyGreen24

Text: Seeing how the Vice President system is vacant once I became President, I suggest that the President can freely fill a vacant VP position in order to keep the structure of the Government stable.

  • Section 1: When a President is removed from office, dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers of the presidency, the Vice President will immediately become President.
  • Section 2: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of Vice President, the President shall be allowed to nominate a successor who becomes Vice President if confirmed by a majority vote of the senate.
  • Section 3: When the President transmits a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate, stating that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the Presidency, and until the President sends another written declaration to the aforementioned officers declaring himself able to resume discharging those powers and duties, the Vice President serves as Acting President.
  • Section 4: The Vice President is allowed, together with a majority of either "the principal officers of the executive departments" (i.e., the Cabinet) or of "such other body as Congress may by law provide", to declare the President disabled by submitting a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate. As with Section 3, the Vice President would become Acting President.
  • Section 5: If the President's incapacitation prevents him from discharging the duties of his office and he does not provide a written declaration to that effect, the President may resume exercising the Presidential duties by sending a written declaration to the President pro tempore. Should the Vice President remain unsatisfied with the President's condition, he may within four days of the President's declaration submit another declaration that the President is incapacitated. The Congress must then assemble within 48 hours if not in session. Within 21 days of assembling or of receiving the second declaration by the Vice President, a two-thirds vote of the senate is required to affirm the President as unfit. Upon this finding by the Congress, Section 4 states that the Vice President would "continue" to be Acting President. Should the Congress resolve the issue in favor of the President, or if the Congress makes no decision within the 21 days allotted, then the President would "resume" discharging all of the powers and duties of his office. The use of the words "continue" and "resume" imply that the Vice President remains Acting President while Congress deliberates. However, the President may again submit a written declaration of recovery to the President pro tempore. That declaration could be responded to by the Acting President in the same way as stated earlier. The allotted 21-day Congressional procedure would start again.
  • Votes:
  • Discussion:

Anti-Facilitator Act

Proposed by: Tr0llis

Text: Recently a position known as "facilitator" has begun to appear in the simulation. The facilitator is one who is allowed to censor or delete debate at his discretion, veto or pass any law or impeachment at his discretion, is unable to be impeached fairly by a party's members, and is able to establish a supreme office within a party that overturns the democratically selected chairman. In the Centrist Party users have already been forced to turn to the senate floor itself in terms of impeachment just to remove the position of facilitator from their party. For that reason I propose that no facilitator position or one similar to it, should be allowed in any party, and guidelines should be put in place to prevent people from seizing control:

  • The highest leadership position(s) within a party must be democratically selected or chosen in a fair manner.
  • People in these positions must be able to be impeached by their party in the case that they fail to exercise the power of their office correctly or honorably.
  • A basic checks and balances must be established, at each party's discretion, that allows for party members to overturn decisions made by the chairman or other high ranking leadership, if an important decision.


  • Votes:
    • Aye:
    • Nay
  • Discussion:

Establishment of Constitutional Document Act

Pretext: Due to recent issues, I, Senator NicDonalds propose this act as a solution. This would benefit our government in many ways.

Title I: Creation of a Constitution

At the moment this document is written, there is no constitutional document or one that is readily available. What this act proposes is for one to be created. This document's main goal would be to state the principals and foundational laws of our government. This document would deal with topics like impeachment, terms, law creation, and government structure. This would not be a document to state every act that is established, but the foundations of the government. This document must no also be biased to any political party.

Title II: Establishment of a Constitutional Committee

To write and make edits to the constitution, a constitutional committee shall be established. This committee will contain members from the various political parties, with an equal proportion of each of these party members. Only the constitutional committee can make edits to the constitution. If a senate member that is not a member of the committee wants to amend it, they should consult their representative to discuss it to the committee. If the committee vetos one of these suggestions, it can be overridden by a congressional vote that has 2/3s in favor of the amendment.

Votes:

This diction of this act may be slightly edited, if needed.

Senate Votes

Instatement of FirstStooge as Prime Minister

Hereby I propose that the Senate instates FirstStooge as the Prime Minister, as one of the more prominent members of the Labour Party, a fellow traveler of the Communist Party and a respected user I think he would be suitable for this position. SkyGreen24(Party,quotes) 13:57, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

Impeachment of Senator Reximus

For refusal to cooperate within the senate, for refusing to relinquish office despite the democratic process of his party, for hindering the process of democracy in this government, and for his alleged coup, I propose we impeach (ban) Reximus. The senator in question is not allowed to vote. Voting will last twenty four hours, and will conclude at 04:59 UTC (12:59 EST) September 29, 2014. 

  • Discussion
    • A brief overview on the amount of things Rex has done to prompt this impeachment against him: He has caused a great disruption in the September Elections. He has gone on yet another racist rant on chat. He has blocked all efforts to impeach him from head role of the Centrist party, including introducing a faux "constitution" which would effectively ban anyone from impeaching him, as well as an insanely ridiculously voting percentage notion which would also prevent impeachment, both of which were introduced without any vote or any member consent at all. A notion also existed where he could just flat out remove any discussion he didn't like, introduced without any vote or any member consent at all. He also voted a 'no' on his own impeachment. Cookiedamage (talk) 05:17, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
    • This is quite absured, in my opinion. Lets address these issues as presented and see if we can find a logical, and not emotional, backing behind it all, shall we?
      • Refusal to Cooperate Within the Senate - Seems like a very blanket accusation to me. I would like to point out that I am have made some of the most coherent, albeit disliked by the Progressives, arguments in this entire simulation. I admit that I have mostly voted no, but that shouldn't be "refusal to cooperate," it is cooperating in a different way. Its not as though I were merely saying "No, this is a stupid idea." I am doing much more than that, I am stating the why and how this could be fixed in order for me to cast a "Yes" vote.
      • Refusing to Relinquish Office Despite the Democratic Process of His Party - First, I'd like to acknowledge that Ms even refers to the Centrists as my party. Huh... Anyhow, as we can see here (the official party page until/if I am removed), the vote is currently heavily opposed to impeachment and removal from the party. Additionally, that vote will take 1 week to be concluded in order to give everyone a level-headed clear chance to vote. We will not know whether or not I will relinquish my power until then, but if the majority of the party thinks that removing me from the position of Facilitator (for which I believe there is no in-simulation reason), then I will be willing to step down. This just doesn't seem to be the most likely at this stage, however.
      • Hindering the Process of Democracy in this Government - Again, a bunch of baloney and buzzwords. Come on, give me some specifics. You cannot! I am more than willing to support democracy for the whole of the wiki! Make a new party if you are not contented with the state of the Centrist Party. I feel that you would be making a mistake, but alas, I cannot control you. I feel that I have some proof to you that I want this government should be more successful, and this is the constitution I have been drafting over the past week. Please, see it for yourself here: User:Reximus55/Sandbox#Gov. Sim. I hope you can see just how much I really care about all of this... it saddens me a bit that all of you who vote "Yes" are actually killing some democracy - after all, is a system truly democratic if you are trying to silence a voice, no matter how controversial? (And to be quite honest, my wiki policies aren't that controversial at all, with many TSPTF and users alike agreeing upon the substance behind them)
      • His Alleged Coup - Lolwut? Up until this point I have tried to analyze this formally, but I cannot anymore! This is an absurd attempt to be funny (I guess?) by NonEuc that really was the definition of ridiculous! Firsly, nobody should be impeached upon "alleged" charges; this holds absolutely no weight. I can allege that Ms and co. are all the same individual, but that allegations would not be viewed as grounds for impeachment. Allegations =/= Proven Events. The fact that this is included in the charges just show how nonsensical this whole impeachment truly is!
    • So, as you can see, none of this makes and kind of real sense. This is an emotional appeal with little to no logic behind it. The use of loaded language wants to make you feel as though you ought to vote "Yes," but I beseech your logic. Who is the number 1 political rival of Ms, the proposer? None other than yours truly. Reximus | Talk to Me! 05:29, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • I have some screens to show a few of the ridiculous, authoriatarian things Rex has done in attempts to put down his impeachment. As you look at them, please realize Rex is not good for this simulation, or for this community, and deserves to be impeached for the amount of disruption he's brought the election. Also, remember that Rex is very much a militant racist, and has numerous times preached white supremacy, how native Americans have a disgusting culture (even insulting a wiki member with Native American heritage) and how slavery should continue to be practiced. Cookiedamage (talk) 05:52, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

    His "constitution" ratified nor approved by no party member. Also note the discussion disclaimer.

    Introducing yet another unratified, unapproved clause in order to uphold his own power.

    Voting on his own impeachment.

  • Alright, I am glad that we can bring this all up. Where oh where to start... First, lets all realize that I created the Centrist Party with Bfoxius. Later on, when Sine joined, we added him as a co-founder; although he wasn't there at the inception of the party, we felt he was a spiritual predecessor to its ideals (and we had to convince him to join us and not a certain other party that will go unnamed). So, it really should not be in disupute whether or not I "own" the party so to speak. Everyone is free to leave or join at his own chosing; its happened before, and it'll happen again at some time. Now, it being my party, I wanted to prevent all of my work into it to go to waste over Cookie's emotional tirades and the manipulative nature of NonEuc and, to a lesser extent, Ms. Therefore, I added a part to the Party constitution that impeachments must be ok'd by Bfox and myself. At the same time, however, I continued to allow the Impeachment to continue. Now, I had just given myself the authority in the party to keep myself in power permanently, but I didn't enforce this. Why would that be? Because I do care about liberty and democracy on the web. As for the Discussion disclaimer, I didn't want NonEuc to go on and spit out tirades about how I am not a true Centrist and the like lot of unconstructive hateful speech. Being attached to my page, I feel that that is not too absurd, esp. since my parents periodically will check the wiki. I truly feel that Editcount is a better method in almost all situations that purely democratic voting; I hold this belief IRL as well. What is wrong with voting on my own impeachment? Its really more of a recall election in the sense that not only is it an impeachment but also an eviction, and I feel that as both a party member and a Senator, I ought to be able to vote on issues that pertain to me. Now, I will assert what I have said time in and time out - Wiki Politics =/= IRL Politics
  • Take this monument to the brave men at Iwo Jima, including Indian Ira Hayes. He was a true warrior, but died a sad drunk. This tragic turn of events epitomizes the descent of a once-mighty culture.

    We ought not silence political beliefs, no matter how "controversial" that they may be. Am I a militant racist? Not in the way which you would think about that phrase. Will I assert that I believe that some races are better than others at certain tasks? Absolutely. I earnestly believe this to be true, and this has some scientific backing. Would I ever hurt someone over race? No. As for the Amerindians issue, I was quite clear to assert that Indian culture used to be quite progressive for the relative little that they had, but that the general and stereotypical modern day Indian culture isn't impressive and is quite sad for a once-proud people. Nor did I insult that Wiki member rather than say that current Indian culture is pathetic when compared to its former glory. Godspeed, Reximus | Talk to Me! 06:18, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I can't personally vote as president, however if a veto option is available I'll use it. Why? Yes, Rex might be racist and conservative, but you really can't impeach him for that. No matter his personal beliefs he has led the Centrists quite well and I honestly think this is merely a scheme to gain more power. I'm guessing some progressive members offered cookie something in return for being on their side. But let's be honest. The Progs have done unimaginable things. While trying to get UT on their side they compared him to Jesus (atleast that is what UT told me on chat earlier), which I personally, as a Christian, find distasteful. Moreover they told Tech/Sean that he could be Prime Minister if he could vote for them. Now you could impeach rex and go on with the GovSim, but remember that one of those days you could be the next person to be impeached. SkyGreen24(Party,quotes) 08:23, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
  •  MS asked me, "Will you stop being like Jesus and run like a normal cannidate?" It seems that Ms stated that because I was being all "preachy" about peace and love. This comparison to Jesus confused me.  This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 08:36, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • This is stupid, some reasons false, now you all are turning Wiki Politics into Real Life Politics, i agree with Sky, as previously stated,, Rex isnt "Hindering the Democracy" of this Wiki, he didn't even start a coup, the Government was created for fun, to explore a government simulation, to experience democracy, not turning everything to an argument, this is not what Government Simulation was created for, in the future say true reasons for an impeachment, not made up, if this continues with people insulting more people then it will be TSPTF worthy, this is just plain stupid, absurd and i don't even know, why you are all arguing, i know the reasons are made up, but people, please stop arguing, you are all making up false reasons to continue the argument, if you continue this argument then people will argue more and more on chat, eventually complainants will be send to MS or the TSPTF, eventually maybe MS will delete the Government Simulation if this argument continues, the Government Simulation was made for fun, not for arguments, i therefore abstain, some of the reasons are true, like KKK and Native Americans and more, but the coup one is false, though i would vote Aye i vote to Abstain, thank you. User:Likercat (talk) 12:22, September 28, 2014 (UTC) 
  • To Rex: You may not vote yourself at all in this vote. It literally says: The senator in question is not allowed to vote. And dont even try to replace Nic's vote to a No when he clearly changed to abstain.
    • As I stated, at the time that I voted, I was allowed to vote. Therefore, I feel that my vote ought to remain. Furthermore, the irony of the fact that you assert that I am hindering democracy when you don't let people vote on matters that touch them closest is too great t obe captured in words. Furthermore, it doesn't help when you (Cookie) come onto chat and, in the span of 3 minutes calling me a "pitiful loser," (when results are still out, a "dummy," telling me to "f--- you" no less than three times, calling me a "piece of s---," and capitalizing like crazy. I think that this is all unneeded and borders upon hazing. Let's see what the TSTPF thinks of all of this. Reximus | Talk to Me! 05:51, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
    • Threaten me all you want Rex. What will the TSTPF think of your comments regarding African Americans, Native Americans, and the KKK? Or when  you insulted a member of Native American heritage, and told him he had none of that said culture? File a complaint about me and get me banned if you wish, but just remember that your plate is just as dirty, if not dirtier, than mine. I may call you names, but please your racism and disruptive behaviour beckons for punishment as well. 
    • I explicity stated that the Third Klan is not a true successor to the first two Klans. The First Klan represented the local Democrats of the South who were being politically oppressed. The Second Klan was about cultural awakening in the South. The Third Klan missrepresented all of this and made the Klan into a hateful organization as opposed to a group based upon pride. May I remind you that the whole political exchange today was also solicited? Sign your stuff, Cookie. Reximus | Talk to Me! 06:28, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't even begun to read the massive wall of text above, but to Rex I'd just like to say this:
Refusal to Cooperate Within the Senate: Reverting edits on this page repeatedly.
Refusing to Relinquish Office Despite the Democratic Process of His Party: By "his" I mean you are a part of it, or at least were. Secondly the thing you linked is both not the official page, and even if it was uses a heavily bias system that was both not approved, and rejected by the Centrists. Since you were unable to do a fair vote on your own, I had to step in and do it for you. Take not the bias voting system and constitution you created ties in to most of these points.
Hindering the Process of Democracy in this Government - No one is allowed to vote in their own impeachment. When I was impeached I could not vote, and didn't think to either. That isn't silencing you (as you might of noticed there is a lot of unsilenced discussion here), but rather creating a fair vote. I personally do not want to vote yes, because I acknowledge the hard work you put in, but then when I saw what you did on the Centrist party, and how you keep edit warring me, I had no choice. This probably isn't permanent, it is just necessary to get you to stop what you're doing.
His Alleged Coup - Perhaps when I wrote this I was talking about your alleged coup of the Centrists, ie taking away their right to impeach you and holding a botched election instead.
"Who is the number 1 political rival of Ms, the proposer? None other than yours truly" - This is incredibly false. We are politics allies on the same side of the spectrum. I recently voted for you, I supported your (former) party, and even made the official page for you guys. In fact when I went into chat last night you'll notice that I had not voted yet, because I was honestly open to hear what everyone had to say and see if anyone could convince me while I watched secretly. What I saw however was another religious and racist rant, which turned me off from voting for the Centrists.

Mscoree (talk) 13:26, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

  • ohh, now i see, i didn't get itbut now i do, Aye. User:Likercat (talk) 13:33, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
  • You aren't getting it, Mscoree! I was not impeached yet by my party. The vote is still ongoing, and it is taking place here: User:Reximus55/Centrist Party. If you are part of the Centrist Party, you can go there and vote; voting will end on October 5. Until then, I am still the Facilitator of the Centrist Party. So, therefore your primary claims are invalid. Also, I didn't have a coup of my OWN party. That is ridiculous! I had no reason to do so. So, please, everyone calm down! I also refuse to recognize the votes of NonEuc, Kras, and Fritz, because the latter two are not members of the simulation and NonEuc is banned. Reximus | Talk to Me! 17:27, September 28, 2014 (UTC) 
  • I actually removed my vote, Rex, before you posted this, on the basis that I'd voted more based on your racist comments then actual reason for impeachment. But still, it's pretty low to reject votes on the basis that someone isn't a member of the simulation. Also, it doesn't matter what your recognize; it's what everyone else recognizes. Hence the term democracy. Shikata ga nai! 22:44, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

End the GovSim

Proposed by:  UglyTurtle

Text: As the controversal "winner" of the September Elections, my first act of "President" is to propose an end to the GovSim as a whole. The GovSim seems to bring nothing but hostility and discord, rather than civilizity and order. This is supposed to be fun, but it is far from it, as it is ruined with arguments that consist of childish insults instead of civil debate. With the September Election in a deadlock of controversy, I think this is a fitting way to end the GovSim. With the GovSim ended, there will be one less thing to argue about. 

Votes:

  • Aye:
  • Nay:
  • Abstain:
  • Discussion:
    • The actions of few men (Mscovites and Rex) should not be able to dictate the actions of the whole group. Another, perhaps much less popular proposal would be to ban every person who threw excrement at the fan from the Government Emulator. Marcus Ioshua Caesar, Consul of the Roman Republic and King of Persia (Talk to Ye
    • For the past three elections, the majority of the users on chat were invovled in an argument, thus it would be hard to track down which user did what that would deserve a ban. If this proposal goes through, it seems it will only cause more arguments. I can see where you are comming from though. This is UglyTurtle, Signing off. 19:32, September 28, 2014 (UTC)
    • My lecturer ever said to me, "The fault of one system sometime not laid on its mechanism and actual foundation, but rather on its men, the actors behind of all of that fault". To argue the GovSim as the source of all disputes on this wiki is not so correct at all. Instead, there are some people that not take this simulation fun enough and behaved childishly over petty matters. I say if give this simulation a second chance (and the people who making a hostility no chance anymore), we will have a more healthy communication over each "parties" on this wiki. FirstStooge (talk) 11:41, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
    • As First said. We should work to improve the simulation, not just give up. Be the change you wish to see in the world. Tr0llis (talk) 19:05, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to disband it. It seems the a lot of people saying the simulation is bad are the same type of people who say NotLAH was bad; people who never played it. Harvenard2 (talk) 02:05, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
    • @Harv: All of these users who voted "Aye" are a part of the GovSim. Saturn is a member of the Communist Party, Sky was the former president of the GovSim, and Vice Presidential nominee of the Communist Party, Cookiedamage is a member of the Centrist party (and was a proposed canidate for the Centrist Vice Presidential ticket) Edge was a nominee for running for President for the Communists, Josh is a member of the Centrist party, and Bfo is one of the co-founders of the Centrist Party. @FS: I am not stating that the GovSim is the cause of all arguments of the wiki, but rather a cause of arguments of the wiki (a major cause at that, especially recently). I see where you are comming from, however.     
    • I was actually referencing the TSPTF talk page, where people who aren't really a part of this are saying it needs to be shut down. On the subject of ending arguments, why don't we ban all humans from the wiki? It seems like a human is involved in every argument, and we obviously have no way of controling our behavior or the content we chose to read. Let's just shut down the wiki. Or the internet even. Harvenard2 (talk) 02:22, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
    • That is simply like, "The waterpipe on my flat is broken...let's blast the entire building". (P.S. I don't know who say what if he did not put his signature after his comment). FirstStooge (talk) 05:40, September 30, 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe the unsigned person is UglyTurtle, and is the person FirstStooge is talking to. Mscoree (talk) 14:15, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Formation of the Senate Inquiry Commission

Proposed by: FirstStooge

Text: The controversial September election brought us many problem and disputes among participants of the government simulation. To show how big and serious the problem is, UglyTurtle, as the winner of September election even proposed the end of Government Simulation. The reason behind UglyTurtle's proposal is that the Government Simulation believed to be the source of all insulting and cursing between each member of the simulation that deemed as childish and immature. However, I propose the Senate must form an Inquiry Commission that will accomodating all of the reports from the members of simulation regarding the latest election to decide the source of all of this disputes and to preserve a healthy and positive existence of this Government Simulation.

Votes:

Discussion:

  • Not sure if this is the right place, but I just wanted to add something. The things that happened in the election were completely legal. Were they fair? No, and as such I support reform. The point is, upto this moment no rule on this matter existed. It is through this incident that we learn the importance of voting requirements. It happened and it's kind of sketchy, but there's nothing on the books saying it can't happen. We need to fix that so it can't happen in the future, and honestly having a confirmed government right about now would be the ideal tool to fix it. Tr0llis (talk) 19:51, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Elections

Former Government

Executive Branch

  • President - Mscoree (Progressive)
  • Vice President - Monster Pumpkin (Progressive)

Legislative Branch

Arch.svg
Arch73.1.svg







  Progressive Party: 12 seats
  Centrist Party: 20 seats
  Communist Party: 26 seats
  Labour Party: 9 seats
  Independent Party: 3 seats
  Conservative Party: 1 seats
  Squirrevolution Party: 2 seats

Rules

  • Each election cycle consists of a debate, election, and a term.
  • Parties must register to be come an official party before the first phase of the cycle (by the debate) by making a comment here listing their party, leader, ideologies, stance, and nominee.
  • When in office legislature can be proposed by members of the government which can amend or create rules/practices for this simulation.
  • Any registered party member, who belongs to a party with representation in the government may propose legislature. Anyone in a represented party may vote.
  • If a party has more members than it does seats in the government than its members must come to some sort of agreement before voting on legislature.
  • Votes for legislature will be counted up so that the ratio of votes for a party are proportional to the number of seats that party has. If a party has twenty seats and they vote three yes and one no than that equals fifteen and five votes. 
  • Once proposed legislature has one week to be voted upon.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.