Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

but thats all

Is that a threat?

[Kikapu]

Now we appear to be getting somewhere, you have accepted that there should be an inbuilt checks and balances with 2 + 2 votes, needing an overall majority of 3 to pass laws at the federal level that will in effect both states.

This system is the same as having eg 30 seats from each and placing a minimum votes required form each state eg 15 to pass a bill at the federal level, the TCs support this its the GCs that oppose it, so in reality we now understand that its the GCs that oppose "true democracy true federation blah blah blah"

Not necessarily. If one state votes for a bill with 30 votes and the other state has 30 votes against the bill, then the bill can still pass or fail with a single vote from the vice president who in effect is a tie breaker. If the president agrees with the vice president's tie breaking vote, then the bill is passed or failed, which ever the case may be. You don't need to have a minimum votes from each state to vote for any bill. You just need a majority to pass/fail a bill.

I can assure you, neither the north state or the south state will vote in blocks as you imagine, because not everyone in your 30 seats per state scenario are on the same ideology or from the same party or from the same ethnic group, because the bills are not going to be based on GCs vs. TCs issues, because any bill that violates the Federal Laws or the constitution will be rejected either before the bill is submitted or after the vote has been taken, assuming it will even get approved. The system has plenty of "Checks & Balances" without you wanting a system where it will create a grid log in the voting system at the Federal level. Once again, most of the voting by 99% that affects each state will be voted within that state and not at the Federal level.

You would rather place the fate of a country in the hands of one individual rather than majorites, why give the president so much power it may work in the USA because 99.9% of the tıme bills are passed or scrapped when each 50 states uses its 2 votes...here in Cyprus we need minimums from each state to clearly see support for the bill and nothing is left to the chnace of just 1 individuals vote. To pass a bill the South state would need 31 votes which include 15 votes from the North state, this imo would provide the best checks and balances, dont forget that bills that would benefit the country as a whole island will get the support in deserves and anything that is shady will not, what is your fear?

This would also have a dual effect firstly of a strong check and balance and a desire to consult and persuade both states that everyone will benefit thus drumming up support, your method would be open to manipulation 30 votes for enosis and the GC president breaks the deadlock by voting in favor and we are back to square one, shit all over....no thanks.

Once again you are not comprehending what I wrote. It is not the GC president who would break the deadlock with his one vote to pass the "enosis" vote according to you. It would be the TC vice president who would cast the tiebreaker vote to pass the "enosis" vote, and if the GC president would also like to see "enosis" come about, then he would not veto the bill, so thanks to the TC vice president, Cyprus would have enosis with Greece, at least that’s what you would think, but since it will be against the constitution and the Federal Law to have enosis with Greece or Turkey, the bill, even if it's voted on will never see the day of light.

By the way, can you tell us or are you going to keep hiding as to who these 30 voting members are from each state. Are they 30 GCs from the south state and 30 TCs from the north state, or they are whomever that happens to reside in those states? Come on VP, let’s see how democratic you are, or conversely, lets see how apartheid you are!

[boulio]

but thats all

Is that a threat?

Not at all I think each community should have one veto on one item it is afraid will happen,you want a veto on enosis.i may want a veto on intervention rights.

[boulio]

Now we appear to be getting somewhere, you have accepted that there should be an inbuilt checks and balances with 2 + 2 votes, needing an overall majority of 3 to pass laws at the federal level that will in effect both states.

This system is the same as having eg 30 seats from each and placing a minimum votes required form each state eg 15 to pass a bill at the federal level, the TCs support this its the GCs that oppose it, so in reality we now understand that its the GCs that oppose "true democracy true federation blah blah blah"

Not necessarily. If one state votes for a bill with 30 votes and the other state has 30 votes against the bill, then the bill can still pass or fail with a single vote from the vice president who in effect is a tie breaker. If the president agrees with the vice president's tie breaking vote, then the bill is passed or failed, which ever the case may be. You don't need to have a minimum votes from each state to vote for any bill. You just need a majority to pass/fail a bill.

I can assure you, neither the north state or the south state will vote in blocks as you imagine, because not everyone in your 30 seats per state scenario are on the same ideology or from the same party or from the same ethnic group, because the bills are not going to be based on GCs vs. TCs issues, because any bill that violates the Federal Laws or the constitution will be rejected either before the bill is submitted or after the vote has been taken, assuming it will even get approved. The system has plenty of "Checks & Balances" without you wanting a system where it will create a grid log in the voting system at the Federal level. Once again, most of the voting by 99% that affects each state will be voted within that state and not at the Federal level.

You would rather place the fate of a country in the hands of one individual rather than majorites, why give the president so much power it may work in the USA because 99.9% of the tıme bills are passed or scrapped when each 50 states uses its 2 votes...here in Cyprus we need minimums from each state to clearly see support for the bill and nothing is left to the chnace of just 1 individuals vote. To pass a bill the South state would need 31 votes which include 15 votes from the North state, this imo would provide the best checks and balances, dont forget that bills that would benefit the country as a whole island will get the support in deserves and anything that is shady will not, what is your fear?

This would also have a dual effect firstly of a strong check and balance and a desire to consult and persuade both states that everyone will benefit thus drumming up support, your method would be open to manipulation 30 votes for enosis and the GC president breaks the deadlock by voting in favor and we are back to square one, shit all over....no thanks.

Once again you are not comprehending what I wrote. It is not the GC president who would break the deadlock with his one vote to pass the "enosis" vote according to you. It would be the TC vice president who would cast the tiebreaker vote to pass the "enosis" vote, and if the GC president would also like to see "enosis" come about, then he would not veto the bill, so thanks to the TC vice president, Cyprus would have enosis with Greece, at least that’s what you would think, but since it will be against the constitution and the Federal Law to have enosis with Greece or Turkey, the bill, even if it's voted on will never see the day of light.

By the way, can you tell us or are you going to keep hiding as to who these 30 voting members are from each state. Are they 30 GCs from the south state and 30 TCs from the north state, or they are whomever that happens to reside in those states? Come on VP, let’s see how democratic you are, or conversely, lets see how apartheid you are!

Don't forget the carpet naggers in the north,they should be allowed to vote.

[Viewpoint]

Now we appear to be getting somewhere, you have accepted that there should be an inbuilt checks and balances with 2 + 2 votes, needing an overall majority of 3 to pass laws at the federal level that will in effect both states.

This system is the same as having eg 30 seats from each and placing a minimum votes required form each state eg 15 to pass a bill at the federal level, the TCs support this its the GCs that oppose it, so in reality we now understand that its the GCs that oppose "true democracy true federation blah blah blah"

Not necessarily. If one state votes for a bill with 30 votes and the other state has 30 votes against the bill, then the bill can still pass or fail with a single vote from the vice president who in effect is a tie breaker. If the president agrees with the vice president's tie breaking vote, then the bill is passed or failed, which ever the case may be. You don't need to have a minimum votes from each state to vote for any bill. You just need a majority to pass/fail a bill.

I can assure you, neither the north state or the south state will vote in blocks as you imagine, because not everyone in your 30 seats per state scenario are on the same ideology or from the same party or from the same ethnic group, because the bills are not going to be based on GCs vs. TCs issues, because any bill that violates the Federal Laws or the constitution will be rejected either before the bill is submitted or after the vote has been taken, assuming it will even get approved. The system has plenty of "Checks & Balances" without you wanting a system where it will create a grid log in the voting system at the Federal level. Once again, most of the voting by 99% that affects each state will be voted within that state and not at the Federal level.

You would rather place the fate of a country in the hands of one individual rather than majorites, why give the president so much power it may work in the USA because 99.9% of the tıme bills are passed or scrapped when each 50 states uses its 2 votes...here in Cyprus we need minimums from each state to clearly see support for the bill and nothing is left to the chnace of just 1 individuals vote. To pass a bill the South state would need 31 votes which include 15 votes from the North state, this imo would provide the best checks and balances, dont forget that bills that would benefit the country as a whole island will get the support in deserves and anything that is shady will not, what is your fear?

This would also have a dual effect firstly of a strong check and balance and a desire to consult and persuade both states that everyone will benefit thus drumming up support, your method would be open to manipulation 30 votes for enosis and the GC president breaks the deadlock by voting in favor and we are back to square one, shit all over....no thanks.

Once again you are not comprehending what I wrote. It is not the GC president who would break the deadlock with his one vote to pass the "enosis" vote according to you. It would be the TC vice president who would cast the tiebreaker vote to pass the "enosis" vote, and if the GC president would also like to see "enosis" come about, then he would not veto the bill, so thanks to the TC vice president, Cyprus would have enosis with Greece, at least that’s what you would think, but since it will be against the constitution and the Federal Law to have enosis with Greece or Turkey, the bill, even if it's voted on will never see the day of light.

By the way, can you tell us or are you going to keep hiding as to who these 30 voting members are from each state. Are they 30 GCs from the south state and 30 TCs from the north state, or they are whomever that happens to reside in those states? Come on VP, let’s see how democratic you are, or conversely, lets see how apartheid you are!

We are debating 2 equal states with 30 reps each elected by those citizens who have reisdency in the given state. The minimum requirement from each state to only having 2 is imperiative and can replace the vice president tie breaking vote as is the case in the USA senate.

[Kikapu]

Once again you are not comprehending what I wrote. It is not the GC president who would break the deadlock with his one vote to pass the "enosis" vote according to you. It would be the TC vice president who would cast the tiebreaker vote to pass the "enosis" vote, and if the GC president would also like to see "enosis" come about, then he would not veto the bill, so thanks to the TC vice president, Cyprus would have enosis with Greece, at least that’s what you would think, but since it will be against the constitution and the Federal Law to have enosis with Greece or Turkey, the bill, even if it's voted on will never see the day of light.

By the way, can you tell us or are you going to keep hiding as to who these 30 voting members are from each state. Are they 30 GCs from the south state and 30 TCs from the north state, or they are whomever that happens to reside in those states? Come on VP, let’s see how democratic you are, or conversely, lets see how apartheid you are!

We are debating 2 equal states with 30 reps each elected by those citizens who have reisdency in the given state.

You are not answering the question put to you. You are trying to be cleaver. Forget it. I didn't ask you who would vote for these 30 seat members from each state. I asked you who the 30 seat members from each state are going to be. Is it going to be 30TCs in the north state and 30GCs in the south state, or who ever is a resident in those states.

The minimum requirement from each state to only having 2 is imperiative and can replace the vice president tie breaking vote as is the case in the USA senate.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.

[Viewpoint]

You know full well what I mean but your biased does not all you to see what i am clearly stating as it does not fit in with preconcieved ideas of what TCs want.

Whats not to understand, minimums from both states eg 15 votes from each state are vital to pass bills, the vice presidents veto is not necessary. eg 30 North state votes plus only 10 from the South state will not be enough to get the bill through. This will encourage both states to lobby for the support of the other state.

[boulio]

You know full well what I mean but your biased does not all you to see what i am clearly stating as it does not fit in with preconcieved ideas of what TCs want.

Whats not to understand, minimums from both states eg 15 votes from each state are vital to pass bills, the vice presidents veto is not necessary. eg 30 North state votes plus only 10 from the South state will not be enough to get the bill through. This will encourage both states to lobby for the support of the other state.

Will they be ethnic reps or residents of the north,it's not a hard question

[Viewpoint]

You know full well what I mean but your biased does not all you to see what i am clearly stating as it does not fit in with preconcieved ideas of what TCs want.

Whats not to understand, minimums from both states eg 15 votes from each state are vital to pass bills, the vice presidents veto is not necessary. eg 30 North state votes plus only 10 from the South state will not be enough to get the bill through. This will encourage both states to lobby for the support of the other state.

Will they be ethnic reps or residents of the north,it's not a hard question

Where have we stated TC or GC, all that has been debated here has been north and south states.

[Kikapu]

You know full well what I mean but your biased does not all you to see what i am clearly stating as it does not fit in with preconcieved ideas of what TCs want.

Whats not to understand, minimums from both states eg 15 votes from each state are vital to pass bills, the vice presidents veto is not necessary. eg 30 North state votes plus only 10 from the South state will not be enough to get the bill through. This will encourage both states to lobby for the support of the other state.

Will they be ethnic reps or residents of the north,it's not a hard question

Where have we stated TC or GC, all that has been debated here has been north and south states.

So you don't mind if the north state's 30 voting reps were 15TCs and 15GCs =30, or worse, 10TCs voting reps and 20GCs voting reps=30, just because the residents living in the north just happens to be 50-50 TCs/GCs after few years and the south's state's voting reps were 25GCs and 5TCs=30, just because the south state's vast majority population is GCs. The both states would still be "politically equal" to each other, will they not? So you are saying you will accept this, right?