In no particular order, I present to you the open votes for the Great Council of 2015:

• Amendment to Article 8, Code of Laws
  
• Amendment to Article 2, Bill of Rights
  
• Amendment to Article 2, Code of Laws
  
• Amendment to Article 3, Code of Laws
  
• Creating a "Ministry of Gameside Affairs"
  
• Amendment to Article 5-6, Code of Laws
  
• Amendment to Article 4.17, Charter
  
• Amendment to Article 6.2.2, Charter
  
• Amendment to Article 10, Charter
  
• Amendment to SPSF Code of Conduct
  
• The Hoplite Bicameral Compromise Bill
  

If something isn't right with any of the votes, please inform me - I did my best to make sure all the votes were in working order, but sometimes stuff comes up. I'll resolve it as quickly as possible if any needs fixing. If I've missed any votes to consider - there were a few threads were there was no actual textual proposal or in one case, the text wasn't really even workable (it was unclear if it was referring to The Charter of the CoL even), so that's something that'll need to be vetted in the Assembly some more.

With Tsunamy and myself removing my proposals, Belschaft's citizenship being revoked and QuietDad's proposal never coming to textual formation, there is only one proposal regarding bicameralism - Hospite's.  So no contradicting vote is necessary - Glen-Rhodes doesn't involve those sections of the law, so they can both be voted on at the same time. 

Thanks so much for your patience. I'm glad to see us wrapping us this momentous Great Council! 

Why are we requiring 75% support for Charter changes, when previous Great Councils have only required simple majority? If you need past precedent, our current Charter was passed with a simple majority requirement: http://tsparchives.hierocles.me/showthread.php?tid=1415

I also still object to you deciding by yourself that my proposal is compatible with Hopolis'. If mine passes, it is explicitly as a mutually exclusive alternative to Hopolis'. Just want to make that clear to everybody, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the voting threads.

See Tsunamy's original announcement: I understand past precedent but it was agreed by the organizers at the start of this Great Council that we would keep to the 75% support requirements for this Great Council.  The law never required nor enabled Great Councils to operate solely with simple majorities.

"Voting will be held to the same standards as to all changes: 75% in favor for the Charter and 50%+1 in favor for the Code of Laws. If these changes do not get the requisite amount of support, the current incarnations of the Charter and Code of Law will remain in effect." - Tsunamy. 

Lastly, your proposal is not "explictly" a mutually exclusive alternative to Hospolis's proposal. Explicit requires explicature. Nothing in the TEXT of your proposal prevents both of your proposals from being enacted without contradiction - so it'd be unfair to voters to needlessly prevent a non-mutually exclusive option.  If you had wanted to make them explictly contradictory, you would have needed to add a clause preventing the house from being split, or something of that sort. You can't say "this can't be passed with that proposal" if the proposals aren't actually contradictory, that's not how the law works and it would unduly limit voters to do otherwise. I stand by my decision, thanks.

1. I don't really care one way or the other, since it looks like things will pass with a supermajority anyways. But I think we should be following past precedent. I don't see why Tsunamy got to unilaterally declare the terms of the Great Council. Could I have done so, had I beat him to the punch?

2. Again, I disagree and I don't think your stance has any legal basis. I can indeed say that my proposal cannot be passed with Hop's. It's the votes themselves that are mutually exclusive, not the text that you're so concerned with. You think it's unfair to voters to not let them have both options at the same time --- I think it's unfair to hijack my proposal in support of an idea I don't like. I am saying right now, as I've said many times before, and I said when I first proposed it, that my proposal is mutually exclusive from Hop's. This isn't something you can just change because you don't personally see it that way!

You can't just declare that, Glen. There must be an actual contradiction between the two proposals. Having a MoGA does not legally prevent the Assembly from also having a second chamber, or an expanded membership. That is the point. You can campaign for the passage of one and not the other, you can make your case, but you can't say that two compatible proposals are contradicting each other, when they obviously are not.

(For the record, I oppose both the Compromise and MoGA bills)

If I say, "I am proposing this as an alternative to Hop's proposal," I don't see where you guys get off saying that it's not an alternative. It's like an election. You can't just elect two people to the same thing because their platforms aren't contradictory. It's an inherent assumption that you're voting on one or the other.

Assume for a moment that both proposals pass. Both would be legally implementable. There wouldn't be any inherent contradiction between the two. That is the point.

You're only taking into account the text, Kris. The votes are substantive, too. It's the votes that are mutually exclusive. Nobody should have ever been able to vote for both in the first place.

The call for me to explicitly ban a bicameral legislature in my proposal was basically baiting me into putting a poison pill into my own proposal. It's not necessary to address it in the text of the Charter, when we have votes that clearly convey the will of the region.

I doubt anyone sees them as mutually exclusive, Glen.

That's because Unibot ignored my instructions. If they had been presented as mutually exclusive, as I've been saying all along, then I'm pretty sure everybody would see it that way.

Like I'm literally holding an apple in front of you, and you're insisting that it's an orange.