[Congress] Proposed change MoNC procedure (reopened)
Day 4,179, 02:40
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by UNL Congress
Greetings, citizens of Netherlands,
Citizen Janty F requested the following debate be voted upon, as a counter argument the CoC team proposed reopening the debate first since a new congress was voted in with many new members that might not have seen the debate before.
Topic: Proposed change MoNC procedure
Requester: Janty F
Text:
Greetings,
now that we have experienced MoNC vote (atleast I am being told, because I have not seen results yet), I belieeve it is time to return back to my proposal on MoNCs. As stated previously by numerous Congress Members, launching debate and vote at the same time is not exactly the best idea, as the opposing side of MoNC has no time to defend itself. That's why I believe debate and vote should not be necessary to launch at the same time.
As last time, the proposal was rejected due to "at any time" missing, I am now adding it back to the proposal. So I expect people (and parties), who claimed to reject the proposal only because of those three words, will now support the proposal, when these words are added "
😉".
Proposal:
Change current Chapter II, Article 8, Paragraph 2 to:
The Congress of the eNetherlands can at any time propose a Motion of No Confidence. In this procedure, a debate and vote can be opened at the same time. In case of a two-thirds majority withdrawing confidence, the official(s) in question are discharged from office immediately.
vote #1
"The Congress of the eNetherlands can at any time propose a Motion of No Confidence. In this procedure, a debate and vote can be opened at the same time. In case of a simple majority withdrawing confidence, the official(s) in question are discharged from office immediately. The country president can only be discharged trough an impeachment law"
yes 9
no 16
neutral: 0
vote #2
The Congress of the Netherlands can at any time propose a Motion of No Confidence. In this procedure, a debate and vote can be opened at the same time. In case of a two-thirds majority withdrawing confidence, the official(s) in question are discharged from office immediately.
yes 18
no 5
neutral 2
odan and Kordak
CoC Team
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
stand by the remark i made last time:
"The Congress of the eNetherlands can at any time propose a Motion of No Confidence. In this procedure, a debate and vote can be opened at the same time. In case of a simple majority withdrawing confidence, the official(s) in question are discharged from office immediately."
stand by the same remark I made last time: this proposal is already based on previous feedback from your party, and changing majority rule is not good idea due to in-game mechanics working with the exact same majority.
Not to mention it is incompatible as that would mean juridically a CP can be removed as well with a simple-majority but not in practice due to game mechanics. Let's stick to the game!
because erep in-game is oh so consistent with those majority rules...
precisely why the CP was excluded in the previous version of this law.
No it is far from perfect but we after all play this game so let's not make up imaginary rules, or unneeded complexities like CP requiring special rules of ''confidence'' as opposed to other people (which leads to strange results like the possibility to remove every minister but not the CP etc).
It is not that inconsistent at all if you take into account eRepublik uses a presidential system.
Using procedure like MoNC should be done only in rare occasions, where literally anyone can see the obvious problems with person, who has no confidence. Serious inactivity, theft, abuse of power... I know lately this motion has been misused for any petty purpose, but let's return the meaning of MoNC back for serious cases only. Just like it is with impeachments, which is the same mechanic (and not different, as odan might claim)
a MonC and impeachment aren't the same things. a MonC can be done against a single person. an impeachment is against the whole government.
a perfect example of the idiotic flaws of erep:
Impeachment needs 66%
NE needs 66%
Declare war needs a simple majority
airstrike needs simple majority.
resource concession need a simple majority
Peace proposal needs a simple majority
most of those laws that require a simple majority are imho quite a lot more damaging potentially than an impeachment.
"The President Impeachment is a type of a law that can be proposed by the members of Congress as the last resort if they want to "fire" current country President."
Source: eRep Wiki
Your opinion on definition of impeachment has been noted, but what I posted is the actual in-game definition (and therefore fact). Hnece meaning impeachment is just a fancy word for "MoNC on President", hence why it should have similar majority as any other MoNC.
Logic 101
no such thing mentioned in-game.
source: actual in-game impeachment page.
and history in eNL has shown we are very serious about our impeachments. only a handful ever happened. and with the exception of a troll one (that got voted down) i believe all of them were successful and thus led to a impeachment.
a MonC is a different beast, it's either a position not voted upon (gov member) or voted upon by congress in almost all occasions in a simple majority vote. so why shouldn't congress be able to go the other way and dismiss them with a simple majority?
Isn't the President also voted upon in single majority vote? And isn't impeachment just MoNC?
(The answer is yes, if you are that simple to not know 😉 )
No matter how much you twist them, the in-game rules are pretty clear. And we should stick to them, instead of inventing unnecessary schemes.
ok so excluding the cp is what you want.
altered the proposal to reflect that:
"The Congress of the eNetherlands can at any time propose a Motion of No Confidence. In this procedure, a debate and vote can be opened at the same time. In case of a simple majority withdrawing confidence, the official(s) in question are discharged from office immediately. The country president can only be discharged trough an impeachment law"
Are you even literate, or just plainly ignorant? I believe my proposal and comments state very well, what I want, yet you claim I want the exact opposite.
Talking to the wall would be more frutiful, atleast the wall would not twist, what I say...
A motion of no confidence is something that shouldn't be taken lightly.. Therefore 2/3 majority vote makes more sense than a simple majority.
I am prolonging the time for the debate on this issue in accordance with Chapter II Article 6 Paragraph 4
debate is officially closed.