Northeast Assembly Thread

[Smid]

Btw, can someone help me figure out how to fix Section C?

Something along the lines of "Where the value of an acre of timber is calculated by dividing the revenue received by the company divided by the number of acres cleared."

[Smid]

This Bill doesn't give any incentive to replace trees, it only waves a big stick (pun unintentional) at companies that don't replace the trees. Therefore an exceptionally hefty punishment provides a bigger stick and I don't have a problem with that.

We should perhaps specify the tree density of an acre of trees for replacement purposes - ie, the minimum number of trees that need to be planted to replace an acre that is cleared.

[Smid]

The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.

Well, you hadn't the authority to do, but anyways it doesn't matter... Just don't do again, please.

Actually, my friend, as presiding officer, he has the right to extend the debate period because the bill was still being debated upon. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

Precisely, and anyone who doesn't agree with his ruling as Presiding Officer has the ability to move the procedural motion: "That - The Chair's Ruling be dissented from." Then everyone can vote on it, but I think the Lt Governor has accurately determined the will of the Assembly.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

I won't be around here much, tomorrow. So Smid can close the vote on the Amendment, and then open a final vote.

No worries.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

This is straightforward enough that, unless there are any objections, we should just move on to the final vote.

Why should we let the Atlasian federal government set our minimum wage?

More importantly, what is the current wage set by the government?

Shame I was rather bored with the political process otherwise, if I were still a Representative this item of legislation would have had my backing. Regardless, I must say to all members of the Assembly I commend you all on your collective efforts

Run again!

[Smid]

My apologies for the delay in casting a deciding ballot.

As I read the Bill, the Age of Consent will be adjusted to 16, so long as the other consenting person is younger than the age of 21.

I cast a ballot in favour of this Bill.

[Smid]

My deciding vote shall be against this Bill.

Obesity is a serious health issue and more should be done to encourage Northeast citizens to make healthy lifestyle choices, rather than merely attempt to make people more comfortable in making unhealthy ones.

I have a further concern that were this Bill to be passed, a gym that sets two different workout programmes - one aimed at muscle tone for a healthy person and another aimed at weightloss for an obese person - could then be charged under this act for discriminating against the obese person due to the workout programme being different.

[Smid]

aye

It's in the debate stage, not the voting stage at the moment.

[Smid]

Just a quick thought: The current rules for this body make it difficult for emergency matters to be addressed. It does provide a certain amount of equity, in that everything gets its proper turn, but it also makes it difficult for you to respond to short-term events (as exemplified by taking up the current resolution long after the matter has ended).

Perhaps this is something to look into.

I think that the mover, Rep Kalwejt, could withdraw the motion if he so desired.

[Smid]

aye

It's in the debate stage, not the voting stage at the moment.

I know but he asked, "The question is whether the bill should be considered?"

Sorry, should explain - this is a procedural vote and it's automatically assumed the vote is passed.

[Smid]

I am casting the deciding vote for the Health Act as a nay.

My predominant concern with the legislation lies with section 1. If this Bill were to pass, I believe that airlines would raise their prices by 5% to prevent a loss from occurring for the subsidised rate. Additionally, the cost of airline tickets should not be influenced by the presence of a gym membership as the two are unrelated. We might as well be legislating that all automated car washes provide discounts to people with gym memberships also. There are industries where subsidised rates for gym members make sense - for example, as active members of gyms are more likely to be healthy, they are less likely to require medical attention for complaints other than emergencies. As such, it would be logical that discounts should be offered to gym members on health insurance - however it should be market forces, not government legislation that mandates this. Additionally, a gym membership card does not a healthy person make. Discounts offered on other unrelated items for gym members may merely encourage a person to take out a gym membership for the purposes of the savings they accumulate, without ever leaving the comfort of their couch - if the cost of the gym membership is less than the amount they anticipate saving through discounts. Such a person is no healthier and is no less a burden on the healthcare system, it is just they now have an additional card in their wallet.

I applaud Representative DC_United's quest to improve the general level of health of Northeast citizens and encourage her to continue to seek ways to improve the standard of living of all Northeast residents. I strongly support section 2 of her Bill and would suggest that this should be incorporated into the legislation governing the Northeast Region's contract law, as a person paying for two tickets on an airline has effectively purchased two seats. Additionally, this will also provide an increased level of comfort to neighbouring passengers of an obese person charged for a second seat.

I would suggest to Representative DC_United that perhaps one way of tackling obesity is to start with childhood obesity. Perhaps the Northeast Legislature could consider legislating the types of foods that can be sold in public school canteens to ensure a healthier range of foods including fresh fruit and vegetables and perhaps specifically banning the sale of chips, lollies and other foods and drinks with a high fat or sugar content (after all, Coke's headquarters are in Georgia and not in the Northeast)? Something along the lines of the Healthy Food for Healthy Schools Act or something? I'm sure the Representative could put something together there.

I see I must also apologise for my level of inactivity. I check the Northeast Assembly thread on a daily basis to keep abreast of legislation that may or may not require a deciding vote to be cast. Unfortunately, as all bar one of you know, the world is round and when it is daytime in America it is generally night-time in Australia. The vote on the Health Act was not finalised until seven o'clock this morning, my time. As I was working away from my desk all day today, I was unable to log on between then and now. Most debates and votes commence sometime in the middle of the night for me and also end at about the same time. This is obviously more convenient for American posters and since Speaker Cinyc is performing a stellar role as Presiding Officer of the Assembly, I am content to observe at times suitable for me and only get involved when necessary.

[Smid]

Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?

I assume this was directed at Segway?

[Smid]

Are you done using the floor of the Assembly for your campaigning?

I assume this was directed at Segway?

You assumed wrong.

 If you showed up to do your job more often, perhaps you would have been able to follow what was going on.

My other incorrect assumption was clearly that everyone but him actually understood that the earth is round because you also seem to think that when it is day in the US it is also day on the opposite side of the world as you likewise seem to have this idea. As I have explained, I keep track of what is happening here and allow the Speaker to do the excellent job he is doing. So far, I have seen only one person constantly interjecting in this thread, who does not have a role in the Northeast Government - and that person is Segway. If you weren't such a partisan hack, you might be able to acknowledge that.

Segway has criticised both me and the Governor here, even though he has no position in the Northeast Legislature. He is the only one here who has been campaigning in this thread. Therefore the only person to whom you could logically have been referring was Segway.

[Smid]

As a member of the Executive, rather than the Legislature, I try not to involve myself in discussing Bills currently being debated on the floor of the Assembly, however I thought I might toss in some thoughts.

In Australia, we use STV to elect the Senate, the Lower House in Tasmania, the Upper Houses in most states and also to elect councillors for many local councils. I know that for the Senate and for the Upper House in Victoria, if a vacancy occurs for any reason, the party which had that position before selects the replacement for that position. It's not set out how the party chooses the replacement, but in Atlasia something not dissimilar to the current endorsement discussion threads would probably be the easiest way to do things.

Another option that you may wish to consider is the way vacancies on local councils are typically filled - since councils are frequently non-partisan here and therefore a party replacement is not appropriate. In these instances a count-back is used. Count-backs are simply re-running the votes at the previous election, and distributing preferences of anyone who voted for the person being replaced - basically it's like assuming that person never ran for a position and wasn't on the ballot paper. The last few elections haven't seen enough candidates for this to be viable, but an amendment such as this would encourage parties to run more candidates than they expect to win positions, thus making General Elections more heavily contested and therefore more exciting. For example, if the JCP expected to have two candidates elected, they might run three or four candidates (and encourage JCP members to allocate preferences according to a set order - thus ensuring that their most-preferred candidates would be most likely to be elected). Then, if a JCP member resigns or the seat becomes vacant for whatever reason, when that candidate is excluded from the count, it is likely that most votes going to that candidate will instead elect another JCP member. This removes the ambiguity of allowing a party to appoint a poster to a position that has become vacant, while also removing the need to quickly declare a special election for the position - and additionally, in a special election for a single position, the predominant party in the Region is likely to elect a person to fill the position, even if the member who has resigned comes from a smaller party - thus unbalancing the Assembly.

[Smid]

I'm concerned that might give political parties themselves too much power- I'd hope that we could vote for individuals and not parties. I don't want people to not vote for me because they are scared what would happen if I left a vacancy, and I'm sure that there are people who don't like that idea, but it's definitely better than the current system.

Under a count-back method, they'd be able to cast your vote for you, being well aware that if you resigned, their vote would flow on to the next candidate remaining in the race.

You raise a good point about parties vs individuals. A couple of the ways to hold PR elections include Party List and STV - in Party List, you simply vote for the party you want and their candidates are elected in order... under STV, people can vote for whichever candidate they wish - either following a particular party, or vote for individual candidates from different parties. That's one reason why Atlasian PR elections are held using STV rather than Party List. Nonetheless, in a countback, the next candidate would be elected - exactly the same as if the person who held the now-vacant seat had not run. Under normal special election rules, a smaller group who all voted for the candidate who resigned may have their voice completely removed because the largest group will win the special election - instead of it merely being a quota that needs to be filled, it would be 50% +1 to get elected, which obviously benefits the strongest party to the detriment of weaker parties - including one which may have just lost a seat due to a resignation.