Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

You can twist and turn all you like people are not stupid as soon as you came face to face with proposals outside of your box you started like Kikapooo to bark, it rattles your cage to read another persons viewpoint, you are against "checks and balances" because you do not want to commit, conform or have to abide by the consequences, this shows you do not trust your own side and feel that they would soon renege on any new solution. I am clear as a bell its you that is confused contradictory, you show that you experience problems understanding that you have to take into consideration the other sides demands, you are now allowed to brush them to one side and ignore them...they do not go away, they just increase in size return and slap you in the face.

I know you were disappointed that I did not support or added anything to your "F" rated Pan voting thingy, only because the TCs would be the major losers, as well as being undemocratic in principle, but since you don't mind the TCs being out voted by the GCs and for them to vote in a lot of "Greek TCs" to help them pass all the bills in the government despite what the TCs may think, ans since you support for undemocratic and Human Rights violations, I thought of this idea for you. Also, since you want to have "Checks & Balances" to prevent any secessionist who would like to break away from the Union at the first chance they get, but in fact you will push for a Unitary state, then let me give you an idea where you can further your Pan Voting system.

Each state to have 50-50, TCs and GCs as that state's MPs. If each state were to have 20 MPs, then 10 MPs would be GCs and 10 MPs would be TCs in the north's state and the same in the south's state. Total MPs = 40. What do you think of this idea and will you support it, bearing in mind, that you will need to have at least 5 MPs from the TCs and GCs to call for a referendum, totalling 15 MPs from that one state, or 75% of that states MPs, to either secede from the Union or to have a Unitary state. This formula does not change the BBF's requirement of "political equality" of the states, does it? Ah, just one more thing. The MPs must also come from the state they will be serving in, but anyone can vote for them from anywhere across the country as per your wish, which means the 20 districts in each state will be divided equally between the TC MPs and GC MPs at 10 districts each, in each of the states.

How's that for thinking outside the box?

Where does this actually differ from what I have been saying?

The difference is, where you want the north state to be all TC MPs and the south state to be all GC MPs, I'm saying, let the north state have 50% TC MPs and 50% GC MPs = 100% for the north and the south state have 50% TC MPs and 50% GC MPs = 100% for the south state. That's the difference!

I amended by post, what are you up to?

[Kikapu]

You can twist and turn all you like people are not stupid as soon as you came face to face with proposals outside of your box you started like Kikapooo to bark, it rattles your cage to read another persons viewpoint, you are against "checks and balances" because you do not want to commit, conform or have to abide by the consequences, this shows you do not trust your own side and feel that they would soon renege on any new solution. I am clear as a bell its you that is confused contradictory, you show that you experience problems understanding that you have to take into consideration the other sides demands, you are now allowed to brush them to one side and ignore them...they do not go away, they just increase in size return and slap you in the face.

I know you were disappointed that I did not support or added anything to your "F" rated Pan voting thingy, only because the TCs would be the major losers, as well as being undemocratic in principle, but since you don't mind the TCs being out voted by the GCs and for them to vote in a lot of "Greek TCs" to help them pass all the bills in the government despite what the TCs may think, ans since you support for undemocratic and Human Rights violations, I thought of this idea for you. Also, since you want to have "Checks & Balances" to prevent any secessionist who would like to break away from the Union at the first chance they get, but in fact you will push for a Unitary state, then let me give you an idea where you can further your Pan Voting system.

Each state to have 50-50, TCs and GCs as that state's MPs. If each state were to have 20 MPs, then 10 MPs would be GCs and 10 MPs would be TCs in the north's state and the same in the south's state. Total MPs = 40. What do you think of this idea and will you support it, bearing in mind, that you will need to have at least 5 MPs from the TCs and GCs to call for a referendum, totalling 15 MPs from that one state, or 75% of that states MPs, to either secede from the Union or to have a Unitary state. This formula does not change the BBF's requirement of "political equality" of the states, does it? Ah, just one more thing. The MPs must also come from the state they will be serving in, but anyone can vote for them from anywhere across the country as per your wish, which means the 20 districts in each state will be divided equally between the TC MPs and GC MPs at 10 districts each, in each of the states.

How's that for thinking outside the box?

Where does this actually differ from what I have been saying?

The difference is, where you want the north state to be all TC MPs and the south state to be all GC MPs, I'm saying, let the north state have 50% TC MPs and 50% GC MPs = 100% for the north and the south state have 50% TC MPs and 50% GC MPs = 100% for the south state. That's the difference!

I amended by post, what are you up to?

My proposal stands as it is, no matter whichever way you want to cut it your voting system, that in order to have your much desired "Checks & Balances", that each state must have 50% GC MPs and 50% TC MPs. In other words, there won't be such thing as pure TC state, even though they may be the majority in the north state and no pure GC state, even though they may be the majority in the south. Simple!

[Viewpoint]

I am the one that proposed minimum votes required to pass laws, this can be discussed as to what would be the best combination to insure checks and balances that neither side can bypass the other. As for issues of either state wanting to secede from the Union or to have a Unitary state this should be in the consitution and not an issue that can be forced to referendum, do you support this?

[Kikapu]

I am the one that proposed minimum votes required to pass laws, this can be discussed as to what would be the best combination to insure checks and balances that neither side can bypass the other. As for issues of either state wanting to secede from the Union or to have a Unitary state this should be in the consitution and not an issue that can be forced to referendum, do you support this?

Before you get too far ahead of yourself on other issues, what is your answer on my "thinking outside the box" idea?

[Viewpoint]

I am the one that proposed minimum votes required to pass laws, this can be discussed as to what would be the best combination to insure checks and balances that neither side can bypass the other. As for issues of either state wanting to secede from the Union or to have a Unitary state this should be in the consitution and not an issue that can be forced to referendum, do you support this?

Before you get too far ahead of yourself on other issues, what is your answer on my "thinking outside the box" idea?

So lets try and get a clearer picture to see how devious you really are:

North State 10GC 10TC
South State 10GC 10TC
Total 40MPs from 40 districts with the votes coming from their own districts electorate.

So how will the TCs MPs coming from the South State be elected if they get less votes than the GC candidates from the same district?

The same goes for the GC MP candidates in the North State districts.

Lets say it was possible then voting on laws etc would need minimums from not only both states but also ethnic origins from each state.

[Kikapu]

So lets try and get a clearer picture to see how devious you really are:

Devious? What's with the attitude? Just helping you with your Pan voting system with "Checks & Balances". That's what you wanted, wasn't it? If not say so, then I won't waste my time.

North State 10GC 10TC
South State 10GC 10TC
Total 40MPs from 40 districts with the votes coming from their own districts electorate.

The votes are not ONLY coming from each district, but all over the country as well, just like what you wanted.

So how will the TCs MPs coming from the South State be elected if they get less votes than the GC candidates from the same district?

Easy. Using your system of "First Past The Post", once the top 10 GC PMs are elected in the south state, then the remaining 10 MPs seats will go to the top TCs, totalling 20MPs for the south state. The only condition has to be, that ONLY one MP is elected from each district, therefore 20 MPs comes from different 20 districts.

If for example a GC candidate gets more votes than a TC in the same district in the south state and the GC is amongst the top 10 candidates with the most votes, then the TC candidate will not become an MP from that district or become an MP at all, even if he should be in the top 10 for the TCs in the south state. That spot will then go to the 11th position TCs with the most votes from another district. At the same time, should a TC candidate receive less votes than a GC candidate in the same district but the GC candidate did not make the top 10 to become an MP, then the TC candidate will become an MP in that district to represent the south state. The same method in the north state. Between the north and the south states, there will be total of 40 MPs, 20 TCs and 20 GCs, in the way you have it in your post, North State 10GC and 10TC and South State 10GC and 10TC. This is the ultimate "Checks & Balances" that you have asked for, isn't it?

The same goes for the GC MP candidates in the North State districts.

As above.

Lets say it was possible then voting on laws etc would need minimums from not only both states but also ethnic origins from each state.

YES.

But you do realise, that in your system of Pan voting, votes from all over the country from anyone to anyone, the GCs will have 5:1 ratio more votes than the TCs will ever have, therefore, they will be able to vote for "Greek TCs" in the south state as well as in the north state as TC MPs. Very little chance for the TCs to vote for "Turkish GCs" in either states.

[Pyrpolizer]

With all due respect guys, the governing system HAS ALREADY BEEN AGREED to almost every detail during Christofias Presidency. Anastasiades confirmed this. I think you are wasting your time trying to figure how the MPs the upper house lower house and all that stuff will work.

[Viewpoint]

So lets try and get a clearer picture to see how devious you really are:

Devious? What's with the attitude? Just helping you with your Pan voting system with "Checks & Balances". That's what you wanted, wasn't it? If not say so, then I won't waste my time.

North State 10GC 10TC
South State 10GC 10TC
Total 40MPs from 40 districts with the votes coming from their own districts electorate.

The votes are not ONLY coming from each district, but all over the country as well, just like what you wanted.

So how will the TCs MPs coming from the South State be elected if they get less votes than the GC candidates from the same district?

Easy. Using your system of "First Past The Post", once the top 10 GC PMs are elected in the south state, then the remaining 10 MPs seats will go to the top TCs, totalling 20MPs for the south state. The only condition has to be, that ONLY one MP is elected from each district, therefore 20 MPs comes from different 20 districts.

If for example a GC candidate gets more votes than a TC in the same district in the south state and the GC is amongst the top 10 candidates with the most votes, then the TC candidate will not become an MP from that district or become an MP at all, even if he should be in the top 10 for the TCs in the south state. That spot will then go to the 11th position TCs with the most votes from another district. At the same time, should a TC candidate receive less votes than a GC candidate in the same district but the GC candidate did not make the top 10 to become an MP, then the TC candidate will become an MP in that district to represent the south state. The same method in the north state. Between the north and the south states, there will be total of 40 MPs, 20 TCs and 20 GCs, in the way you have it in your post, North State 10GC and 10TC and South State 10GC and 10TC. This is the ultimate "Checks & Balances" that you have asked for, isn't it?

The same goes for the GC MP candidates in the North State districts.

As above.

Lets say it was possible then voting on laws etc would need minimums from not only both states but also ethnic origins from each state.

YES.

But you do realise, that in your system of Pan voting, votes from all over the country from anyone to anyone, the GCs will have 5:1 ratio more votes than the TCs will ever have, therefore, they will be able to vote for "Greek TCs" in the south state as well as in the north state as TC MPs. Very little chance for the TCs to vote for "Turkish GCs" in either states.

So you believe the GCs will manipulate the pan voting in favor of TC candidates they have bought?

[repulsewarrior]

...i'm still asking myself if an elector is not a "Greek" or a "Turk" how are they treated? and how, when demographics change so that these "others" are a significant minority, will they have, as Individuals, their "equality" as well? furthermore, if we are Bicommunal, how, as Persons can we represent, with such a vhange, our respect for the equality of Persons, as well.

...either way History will say, when the island matures as a State, "Greeks" and "Turks" changed, they are Cypriots; this is not a bad thing, if as Men, the world is a better place.

[Viewpoint]

...i'm still asking myself if an elector is not a "Greek" or a "Turk" how are they treated? and how, when demographics change so that these "others" are a significant minority, will they have, as Individuals, their "equality" as well? furthermore, if we are Bicommunal, how, as Persons can we represent, with such a vhange, our respect for the equality of Persons, as well.

...either way History will say, when the island matures as a State, "Greeks" and "Turks" changed, they are Cypriots; this is not a bad thing, if as Men, the world is a better place.

The ideology of what you preach repulse never developed in Cyprus, the trust has been lost when will you come back down to earth and realize this?