This amendment has been passed by the House and has passed a citizens' vote.

For
West Kronisia
Salibaic
Krovx
Make America Italian Again
Tigslarlowducken
Azerubia
Lashnakia

Against
None

Abstentions
Elysium

This bill has been repealed.

For
West Kronisia
Salibaic
Krovx
Make America Italian Again
Elysium
Tigslarlowducken
Azerubia
Lashnakia

Against
None

Abstentions
None

This bill has passed. This bill shall be called House Bill 60.

For
West Kronisia
Salibaic
Krovx
Make America Italian Again
Elysium
Tigslarlowducken
Azerubia
Lashnakia

Against
None

Abstentions
None

Nation in the Union: Battadia
Region: Force
Discord Name (inc. #_ _ _ _): Battadia#8545

You are most certainly accepted! Good to have you!

---

---

---

Brief Overview

The Debate period is intended to be a time in which citizens can assess the competence of candidates running for office and make an informed decision in the voting period that follows. All citizens may ask questions to the candidates and while the candidates are not legally bound to answering these questions, it is highly encouraged. Candidates are however legally bound to answer all questions asked of them by the Founder.

Candidates for Prime Minister
Salibaic (F)

Candidates for House of Representatives
Krovx Belgium (R)
Make America Italian Again (H)
Salibaic (F)
South Krimelski (F)
Sidervida (F)
West Kronisia (C)
Suter (R)
Tigslarlowducken (F)
Lashnakia (F)
Empire of Elysium (H)
Ushornaia (R)

Candidates for High Court
Krovx Belgium (R)
Tigslarlowducken (F)
Lashnakia (F)
DeadlyAntics (F)
Gender Nonconformists (R)

Relevant Law

1. As a candidate, you are required to answer all questions asked to you by the Founder (Renegalle) and the Speaker of the House (Kronisia) during this Debate or you will be automatically disqualified (§B.4.1).

Required: Questions for All Prime Ministerial Candidates

1. What makes you the best candidate for Prime Minister?

2. What changes do you plan to make in Force to keep the community active and also encourage new people to take part in government?

3. Who would you appoint to your ideal Cabinet (ex-members, people who would be ineligible, and people not necessarily willing to serve can be included)? Why would you choose these people and what specific things would they bring to each office that you consider to be most important?

4. If elected, how do you plan (if at all) to change the structure of the existing Ministries? Would you consider abolishing, creating, or merging any of them? Why?

5. Territories are growing each month and are more important than ever in Force politics. What do you plan to do for them?


Required: Questions for All House of Representatives Candidates

1. Which House Bills do you plan to create, pass or repeal? Why?

2. In what ways should the Constitution be amended, if at all? How would this improve the Constitution?

3. What qualifies you to serve in the House? What makes this qualifying?

4. How do you feel about the Legislative branch being mixed with the Judicial branch, as there are candidates here who are attempting to become both Justice and House rep? Is this a good thing to you, or not, and why?

5. If elected, do you plan on running for Speaker? If so, what makes you a good candidate for this position and if not, who do you think would be a better candidate?

6. As a House Representative, how would you encourage new and old members to take part in the government, even if just to encourage them to join the house next election?

7. How will you ensure that your constituents' voices are heard in the house?

Required: Questions for All High Court Candidates

1. The Justices are responsible for deciding the punishment for a person found guilty, following a trial. You are required to do so with the advice of the Jury. With this in mind, how would you balance your own thoughts on how harsh punishment should be with the Jury's recommendation?

2. The Justices are responsible for determining whether any laws contradict the Constitution. With this power in mind, what method(s) would you use to come to a decision as to the legality of a law? If a law was not necessarily illegal but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for it to be overturned?

3. Do you believe it is more important to take your time when deciding the verdict for a case, even if it means the guilty party goes longer without punishment, or do you believe it is more important to quickly decide on a verdict, even if it means the punishment may not be as suitable as otherwise? What factors would tilt this more in favour of one or the other?

4. Similarly to Q2, if a case was brought to the court against someone who had not necessarily done something that was illegal, but went against the character of the Constitution, would you consider that fair grounds for the case to be considered?

5. What would you do to encourage members, both new and old, to partake in the Judiciary in future?

Nation: West Kronisia
Region: CAD
Political Party: Independent
Position Seeking: House Representative