Considering the original act had no provision for the protection of PM's/1-2-1's, it's still an improvement. That being said, I do agree - however, if I were to be involved in a PM conversation with two others, discussing hacking the site and taking it over, and one informed the monarch? (Radical example) You'd want to see the PM's.
However, I do agree - there's a fine line between necessary powers and overly intrusive legislation: you need to remember that my political preference is for a well-managed state that has enough powers to function efficiently, whereas Mootles prefers an executive-run state in which the Monarch has those powers himself. It's just two different ways of doing things
I'll remove those two provisions, as it seems consensus is firmly of the opinion they aren't required.
I was under the impression that this was half for-serious legislation and half for-fun, though. If we're doing everything based on how likely it is to actually happen, our opportunities to legislate are far reduced. And perhaps if we need an overall procedure for law, you'd be willing to help come up with it?
Apart from vote-rigging in the case of Underhusen Elections, where else will there be corruption in the government of Wintreath?
Honestly, I think this is a rather stupid comment to make. Where else? Anywhere else. The Underhusen could pass legislation that means the current reps stand for longer and longer, there's the
potential for abuse in the executive bodies that Mootles creates, the Monarch him/herself could decide to start something technically illegal - I don't know yet, because so far everyone's actually decent people and don't need this law to make them behave like that.
But the point of laws is not that they're needed (reactive legislation) but that they could in the future be required (pre-emptive legislation). I'm increasingly getting the feeling that I'll need to make a post explaining my political position so as to demonstrate why I hold certain views.
