Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Hatman 🍁]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

I don't think the government has any place (or ability) to dictate how the parties can or cannot select their candidates.

You mean in principle? If this is the way the Senate feels, then I will oppose Lewis' amendment as well.

I mean legally. I don't think the government can do that.

Legally it is not within the power of either the Senate or the DoFA to regulate internal party affairs. All that either can regulate is what constitutes a major party and what the benefits of being of such a said party are.

I thought this was a constitutional amendment, but I guess it's not. I didn't think one could change the electoral system without one.

[minionofmidas]

I thought this was a constitutional amendment, but I guess it's not. I didn't think one could change the electoral system without one.

The constitutional amendment that goes with this bill is in a separate thread (End to Districts Amendment). We don't want all these detailed rules clustering up the Constitution.

And unlike Colin and Verily, yes I do think it would be possible for the Senate to make rules for how the parties fill Senate vacancies. This is election law, not "internal party business". I just don't think detailed rules on that would help us much here.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

[Јas]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

The Bill is essentially tied to the End to Districts Amendment cuurently also on the Senate floor. Indeed 6 Senators and the President would be enough to pass this bill, but the the bill is incumbent upon pasage of the Amendment which will require (at a minimum) 7 Senators and a majority vote in 4 of Atlasia's 5 regions.

That is why I've been urging consensus, because that's the only way to get any constitutional reform passed.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

The Bill is essentially tied to the End to Districts Amendment cuurently also on the Senate floor. Indeed 6 Senators and the President would be enough to pass this bill, but the the bill is incumbent upon pasage of the Amendment which will require (at a minimum) 7 Senators and a majority vote in 4 of Atlasia's 5 regions.

That is why I've been urging consensus, because that's the only way to get any constitutional reform passed.

I was actually speaking to the fact that if both were passed (and the amendment ratified), then the Senate could, in the future, fundamentally change the game with the approval of a scant 7 people total—which is what, fewer than 10%?  That is what I oppose.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

The Bill is essentially tied to the End to Districts Amendment cuurently also on the Senate floor. Indeed 6 Senators and the President would be enough to pass this bill, but the the bill is incumbent upon pasage of the Amendment which will require (at a minimum) 7 Senators and a majority vote in 4 of Atlasia's 5 regions.

That is why I've been urging consensus, because that's the only way to get any constitutional reform passed.

I was actually speaking to the fact that if both were passed (and the amendment ratified), then the Senate could, in the future, fundamentally change the game with the approval of a scant 7 people total—which is what, fewer than 10%?  That is what I oppose.

Except that an amendment would have to be approved by the electorate. Well, no, that's not true; the electorate of a given number of regions. Amendments have been approved by the electorate overall but still failed.

[minionofmidas]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

The Bill is essentially tied to the End to Districts Amendment cuurently also on the Senate floor. Indeed 6 Senators and the President would be enough to pass this bill, but the the bill is incumbent upon pasage of the Amendment which will require (at a minimum) 7 Senators and a majority vote in 4 of Atlasia's 5 regions.

That is why I've been urging consensus, because that's the only way to get any constitutional reform passed.

I was actually speaking to the fact that if both were passed (and the amendment ratified), then the Senate could, in the future, fundamentally change the game with the approval of a scant 7 people total—which is what, fewer than 10%?  That is what I oppose.

Except that an amendment would have to be approved by the electorate. Well, no, that's not true; the electorate of a given number of regions. Amendments have been approved by the electorate overall but still failed.

He means: After the amendment passes. (ie the Senate could go back to districts despite continued popular support for STV.)

[Hatman 🍁]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

I agree. As I outlined in my opposition to the popular initiative amendment, changing the voting system is one of those things that should be put to a referendum.

[minionofmidas]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

I agree. As I outlined in my opposition to the popular initiative amendment, changing the voting system is one of those things that should be put to a referendum.

Let's move this debate over to the constitutional amendment thread, fellas. That's where it would seem to belong.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Indeed, back to the original topic of the filling with vacancies: it appears as though the "party selection" option, which defaults back to a by-election in case of non-affiliated Senators, seems the best bet here.  I think I could support that method.

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment:

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Nay.

[Brandon H]

Nay for the reason that "major party" may not be constitutionally defined as 5 members in the near future. I offer the following instead (I did mention this to Jas in a PM.) (same thing, but changed major party and felt 4 would be a better number due to the declining population and smaller parties from when the Second Constitution was written):

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a party with 4 at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

[Ebowed]

Aye

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Brandon H]

I'll change to Aye, but still ask that my amendment be brought to the floor afterwards.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Aye.

[Hatman 🍁]

Abstain

[Јas]

With 5 Ayes and 1 declared abstention, the amendment has passed. ()

Result on Lewis' Amendment
Aye: 5 (Ebowed; Lewis; Al; Brandon; Moderate)
Nay: 1 (Sam)
Abstain [Voted]: 1 (Earl)
Abstain [Didn't Vote]: 3 (DWTL; PBrunsel; Rob)

[Verily]

Finally, the bickering ceases.

[Јas]

The following amendment is now at vote:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a party with 4 at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain accordingly.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Aye.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[minionofmidas]

Nay