Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Јas]

This bill is certainly the most complex and probably most ambitious of all of the reform bills I wrote, relecting the amount of time put into it to try and ensure all the bases are covered.

The aim of this bill (in conjunction with the required Constituional Amendment which follows in the legislative queue) is to introduce into Atlasia the system of Proportional Representation by means of the Single Transferable Vote for elections to the seats currently held by District Senators.

If I may, I shall quote my comments in the Elections Board after introducing hte bill to the Senate:

My fellow Atlasians,

Today I have introduced into the Senate chamber two pieces of legislation - The Proportional Representation Act and the End to Districts Amendment. I propose to end the system of District elections in Atlasia and replace them with elections in the style of PR-STV (Proportional Representation by means of the Single Transferable Vote).

Under this scheme, the entirety of Atlasia would become a single multi-member electoral constituency which would elect 5 Senators. The reasons why I have decided to do this is because I believe it will be good for Atlasian elections; good for Atlasian voters; and good for Atlasian parties.

More Competitive Elections
Recently, we came through our most competitive Senatorial elections in some time. However even so, the Southeast election was uncontested. Under my proposed system, free tickets into the Senate will be much more difficult to find. So long as there are more candidates nationally than seats to be fought for this system guarantees a competitive election. Persons will have to work harder to get elected – hopefully meaning more active campaigns and bigger Senate campaign debates.

More Choice and Influence for Voters
Further, this scheme benefits voters. The process of voting remains simple. As in the other elections one continues to order candidates in order of preference. The difference lies in how votes are counted and even then only to a small number of votes. The benefit to voters is that instead of picking between 2 or 3 candidates, voters will now have a much broader range of candidates to choose from and so be better able to reflect their political or personal preferences in the voting booth. In the last Senatorial election 10 candidates stood. The average voter had a choice of 2 candidates, under the new system they would have had a choice of all 10. They will also be able to influence the election of all the candidates – a direct say in the election of half the Senate.

Further for those voters who feel they live in districts dominated by alternative political mindsets, their votes will no longer be ‘wasted’. They will be much more likely to find candidates of a like-minded nature and more likely to have an influence in who gets elected.

A New Challenge for Atlasian Parties
I also believe this will be good for Atlasia’s party and caucus system. This new electoral method will present the parties and party strategists with new challenges beyond simply candidate selection. Parties will have to consider such issues as how many candidates to run (which could lead to a return of primaries) and whether or not to try and organise transfer pacts with like minded parties, etc. Independents (like myself) have nothing to fear from the system either, voters still will vote for candidates not parties.

Why not the Regions?
I propose that this change be brought in place of our current districts structure. Many people, including myself, feel that the regions should be maintained and fostered, I propose to retain the regional Senators as representatives for their Region in the Senate. Removing the Districts is simpler and also gets rid of the problems which often arise with the re-districting process.

Concluding Thoughts
Last week I introduced 5 proposals of forum affairs reform before the Senate. As I said before, when introducing those original proposals and during the Presidential campaign, reform is top of the agenda. This is the 6th proposal and most considerable. Certainly it took much more effort than any of the others. For too long it has been ignored. I put in this work because I believe this proposal to be a most worthwhile pursuit which could be of great value to Atlasia and Atlasian elections.

This is one of the most radical pieces of electoral reform put forward for consideration in quite some time. In order to effect this change both ordinary legislation and a constitutional amendment removing all reference to Districts is required. Both are now on the list of legislation before the Senate and (being an ambitious soul) I shall aim to have them both considered as soon as possible with the ultimate ambition of having this in place for the elections in 2 months time. I hope I can find the support within the Senate and with you, the people, to bring about this radical but I believe potentially very worthwhile change.

I urge you all to consider it carefully and I look forward to hearing what you all think. Thank you all for your attention as to my meandering thoughts. As before, I would encourage any questions, comments or considerations you may have. (Unqualified praise and adulation would be most warmly accepted, but I’ll make do with whatever’s out there. )

Also:

Those unfamiliar with STV may find benefit from the following links:

Wikipedia

• Single Transferable Vote
• History and Use of STV
• Counting STV

I'd also recommend the British Columbia Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform site. This contains a number of helpful guides, such as BC-STV Counting.

I appreciate that the bill may not be easy to digest and so welcome any questions you may have.

Just to note, the bill is not intended to affect the upcoming district elections. Clause 21 of the Bill was inserted so as to allow implementation when appropriate.

[Јas]

On the vacancy issue, the reason I chose the by-election method was mainly for 2 reasons.

Firstly, for essentially the reasons Colin stated above - that the winner on countback may no longer be involved or may be in a different position in the game.

Secondly, because at the time of the vacancy different people may wish to get involved than those who sought office at the original election.

And thirdly, because elections are central to Atlasia and increase interest and activity (through campaigning and such).

Having said all that, if an agreeable alternative emerges (as appears to be the case) with significant support than that's fine with me.

[Јas]

I am totally opposed to proportional representation. As a voter in Atlasia, I want to have my own representative, responsible for representing me and I want to be able to hold that individual directly accountable.

Well, of course, said individual isn't just responsible just to you, but to an entire district. I would also wonder in your experience just how often, for example you've had a leftist Senator representing you who couldn't give a whit what your thoughts were and wasn't dependent on your vote - are those Senators truly accountable to you?

Under this proposal, you would have 6 Senators who would be seeking your vote (your regional Senator and the 5 STV elected Senators). This, I think, increases your importance - especially if one lives in a district dominated by an alternative political ideology.

[Јas]

Re section 20: The correct plural of census is censi.

Ah, apologies. I'd suggets either bring a friendly amendment; or just pretend it's the Atlasian spelling .

[Јas]

In my opinion it would be much simplier to have 2 regional senators split into Class A and B, or expanding to split each region into 2 and give them each a senator

Yes, that's certainly simpler. But this proposal isn't based on the premise that what's simple = what's best.

The benefits of the proposal, to my mind, include the following:
More Competitive Elections;
More Voter Choice;
Possible Return of Regular Party Primaries;
Ends the Need for Re-Districting;
Retains Regional Representation;
Fewer 'Wasted' Votes...

I certainly concede that the proposal isn't the simplest electoral process out there, I propose however that it brings many possible benefits to Atlasia.

[Јas]

Something else that may need to be addressed is (from the wikipedia article):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This addresses one issue but does not address the issue of independents. I then thought of perhaps allowing Independents and Single Member Parties the use of a replacement list but then that is open for abuse (person switching to indy just so they can use a replacement list). If we do that then I was thinking we should have a 30 day pre-election requirement.

This could become quite complicated.

I would prefer a uniform approach to be adopted if possible when dealing with vacancies, either simply accept the result of countback whatever about party designation, allow a replacement list for all candidates to be lodged with the DoFA, or (preferably IMO) by-elections.

[Јas]

I'll introduce the amendment using countback for all vacancies. Independents will have to encourage like minded individuals to run as "secondary choices" just as parties will.
--
Sections 18 and 19 are replaced as

If a vacancy occurs then the "Countback" Method shall be used: the candidate whose seat has become vacant shall be removed from the ballot and the votes shall be recalculated.

And all following sections shall be renumbered appropriately.

As is no doubt clear, I'm not a huge fan of countback, but I think that if an amendment is going forward to put it in place there should be a provision in place to set a time limit for the winner by countback to actually accept the seat and provision in place for what should have if the new winner declines.

Also, I would appreciate some feedback on my suggestion of running a test vote during this coming election.

I would worry that it would be problematic for a number of reasons, must critically to me that persons finding themselves elected in the elections proper but not by this method in the test run would vote it down solely on that basis.

I'm not sure about the necessity for a test vote, in that the actual method of voting is perfectly simple and effectively exactly the same as currently used - state the candidates in order of preference. The only difference is in counting and specifically the setting of a quota and the distribution of surpluses.

[Јas]

Should the time frame be 72 hours, or is that too short of period? I think anything longer than a week would be too long.

Yeah, I'd say 72 hours is fine.

BTW, please include provision for the possibility that one runs out of candidates to accept the seat.

[Јas]

Tally on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 3 (Brandon; DWTL; PBrunsel)
Nay: 4 (Earl; Lewis; Ebowed; Phil)
Yet to Vote: 3 (Al; Rob; Sam)

[Јas]

Updated Tally on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 4 (Brandon; DWTL; PBrunsel; Sam)
Nay: 4 (Earl; Lewis; Ebowed; Phil)
Yet to Vote: 2 (Al; Rob)

There are less than 24 hours left to vote on this amendment.

[Јas]

Proportional Representation Bill

2. For the purposes of these elections the whole of Atlasia shall be treated as a single electoral constituency.

My first reactions to this Bill was where's the accountability?

I am totally opposed to proportional representation. As a voter in Atlasia, I want to have my own representative, responsible for representing me and I want to be able to hold that individual directly accountable.

Couldn't have put in better myself, Senator

Dave 'Hawk'

You're going to have to help me out here Dave.

I really don't understand this view that a single member constituency representative is any more accountable than a multi-member constituency representative. Both are dependant on their constituents to keep them in office, and so both are accountable to their electorates. This is not a party list system, people who are seeking election will have their names on the ballot papers. If the electorate choose, they may elect or reject that individual - where is accountability lacking?

Of all the changes this bill would make (which I believe are almost all positive), I really don't see how there will be any difference in accountability standards at all.

[Јas]

One senator, one district, and an electorate to which he or she is exclusively accountable! I see nothing wrong with that, so why change things?

In short...

The benefits of the proposal, to my mind, include the following:
More Competitive Elections;
More Voter Choice;
Possible Return of Regular Party Primaries;
Ends the Need for Re-Districting;
Retains Regional Representation;
Fewer 'Wasted' Votes...

More comprehensively, I'd refer you to my first post in this thread here.

[Јas]

Proposed Amendment:
That the following shall replace sections 18 and 19 of the bill and subsequent sections be re-numbered accordingly.

Vacancies
18. Where a single Class B Senate seat vacancy exists, it shall be filled by 'Countback', wherein the results of the election which filled the seat shall be re-calculated ignoring all preferences cast for the candidate whose position is being filled. The best placed candidate of the re-calculation (hereinafter 'the winner') shall be deemable elected to the vacant seat.

19. The winner on countback must give notice to the Department of Forum Affairs that he will accept the seat within 72 hours of the certification of the result of the above countback method.

20. Should the winner not accept, the votes will be calculated once more per above, ignoring also the votes cast for the winner on countback. The new best placed candidate not elected originally shall now be entitiled to hold the seat on the same conditions as set out above.

21. Wherein no further persons are found to be eligible or wanting of the vacant seat on countback, 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.


I would ask Senator Brandon whether or not this amendment meets with his approval. It would institute Countback as the primary method for vacancy filling until such time as no-one is willing or able to take the seat by that method, in which (likely very rare) circumstance a by-election would be held.

If this is acceptable, I would ask the Senator to formally introduce it.

I would also ask any Sentators who support the bill's broad intentions to vote in favour of the amendment should it be introduced.

[Јas]

I would strongly urge those who broadly support the move to PR-STV to vote in favour of the amendment.

Nay.

Dare I ask, why the Nay vote here but the Aye vote on the previous version?

[Јas]

Needless to say, I will be opposing this bill, regardless of what form it appears in - largely for the departing Senator Keystone Phil's reasons...

Well, based on your previous post:

4. Proportional Representation Bill:  Undecided

I hadn't figured that your opposition was such a given.

Would you be willing to explain your opposition in further detail?
Because (i) I'm willing to try and build a consensus position; and (ii) I really don't understand Phil's point.

[Јas]

I would strongly urge those who broadly support the move to PR-STV to vote in favour of the amendment.

I'm sorry, but I dont support this "countback" method.

I do not believe it to be the best method either (and have made my reasons known earlier in this very thread), however it seems clear to me that its inclusion is necessary if PR-STV is to have a genuine chance at being implemented.

If this amendment is voted down, I think the chances of getting reform here are minimal. That is why, I urge an Aye vote on the amendment.
 

[Јas]

Mr. Vice President, I think we have at least three Senators who support PR but oppose this amendment. Do you really think implementing countback will increase the chances of this bill passing? 

I think this bill could pass without Countback, however the upcoming Constitutional Amendment will require 2/3 support in this chamber (and then majority support in 4 regions). Support for the reform needs to be as broad based as possible if it is to be achieved.

Brandon's support is important in helping to pass not just the bill but also the upcoming amendment. My understanding of his position is that he would prefer a system of replacing vacancies such that the replacement will cause a significant shift in the ideological balance of the Senate. Countback will usually achieve this end. For other replacement options see here.

In short, if the cost of Brandon's support is to remove by-elections in favour of an alternative method of replacing vacancies, then I believe it is very worthwhile. That is why I urge support for the present amendment.

[Јas]

Tally on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 1 (Brandon)
Nay: 5 (Sam; Earl; Ebowed; Al; Moderate)
Yet to Vote: 4 (DWTL; Lewis; PBrunsel; Rob)


As countback is proving impossible to pass and because I believe that this reform will not succeed with by-elections as the replacement option, I have drafted another amendment for consideration.

I now propose that all Senators elected by PR-STV submit replacement lists with the Department of Forum Affairs stating an order of preference of citiznens to fill the seat in the event of a vacancy arising. Ths would effectively guarantee that the balance of the Senate should not be greatly disturbed and that vacancies could be filled in a quick and hassle free manner.

I would appreciate it this would be introduced by a member of this chamber immediately. The amendment is as follows:

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

Vacancies
18. Each Senator shall submit to the Department of Forum Affairs a list of citizens who shall be eligible to co-opt their seat in the eventuality of their vacating the seat themselves (hereinafter ‘the list’).
 
19. The list shall be no longer than 10 names long, and shall have names in order of preference as to whom shall be offered the seat in turn, in the event of a vacancy.

20. The list of each Senator shall be amendable at any time by the Senator by giving notice of such change to the Department of Forum Affairs.

21. The list shall be a matter of public record. It shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to maintain a thread or Atlas wikipage containing the lists of the effected Senators.

22. In the event of vacancy, the Department of Forum Affairs shall make public declaration, by way of a thread, of the vacancy which has arisen and publish the list of the ex-Senator.

23. The first preferred person on the list to co-opt the seat shall have 72 hours within which to publicly accept the seat, so long as he is meets such other requirements as may be to hold the office of Senator. Should this not occur, the right to claim the seat shall pass to the second preferred person on the same terms.

24. Should the list find itself exhausted, 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.

[Јas]

I'm sorry Jas, but the only method of filling vacancies that I will support is through a by-election.

Even at a cost of the reform not going through at all?

I must say when I wrote this bill, I wouldn't have dreamed that the issue of vacancy filling would be so touchy. Compromise, consensus building and agreement have largely been spurned during this Senate term and frankly this issue, quite subsidiary to the bill as a whole, but yet proving increasingly difficult to find any common ground on epitomises the quite testing relations that the strict partisan divide of this chamber for the past few weeks and months has engendered.

The filling of vacancies is a peripheral issue. Is it worth sending the attempted reform down in flames because of it?

[Јas]

I have to agree with the esteemed Vice President, when you get down to it filling vacancies should not be something that should derail this amendment, the need for reform in the area of representation is more important than whether the method used for filling vacancies is countback or by-election. I don't really get what the big issue is here. In one sense I can't believe that, after many pages of debate, the main issue is filling vacant Senate seats. I guess I should be happy that people are squabbling mostly over this issue instead of passionately denouncing any effort for reform but to see this reform brought down by divisions over an extraneous issue such as this would be a blow to both this chamber and to the effectiveness of the entire Atlasian government.

Hear, hear.

[Јas]

BUMP

Tally on Brandon's Amendment
[Countback as method of vacancy filling]
Aye: 1 (Brandon)
Nay: 5 (Sam; Earl; Ebowed; Al; Moderate)
Yet to Vote: 4 (DWTL; Lewis; PBrunsel; Rob)

[Јas]

Voting is now open on the following amendment:

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

Vacancies
18. Each Senator shall submit to the Department of Forum Affairs a list of citizens who shall be eligible to co-opt their seat in the eventuality of their vacating the seat themselves (hereinafter ‘the list’).
 
19. The list shall be no longer than 10 names long, and shall have names in order of preference as to whom shall be offered the seat in turn, in the event of a vacancy.

20. The list of each Senator shall be amendable at any time by the Senator by giving notice of such change to the Department of Forum Affairs.

21. The list shall be a matter of public record. It shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to maintain a thread or Atlas wikipage containing the lists of the effected Senators.

22. In the event of vacancy, the Department of Forum Affairs shall make public declaration, by way of a thread, of the vacancy which has arisen and publish the list of the ex-Senator.

23. The first preferred person on the list to co-opt the seat shall have 72 hours within which to publicly accept the seat, so long as he is meets such other requirements as may be to hold the office of Senator. Should this not occur, the right to claim the seat shall pass to the second preferred person on the same terms.

24. Should the list find itself exhausted, 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.

[Јas]

Tally on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 3 (Sam; PBrunsel; Brandon)
Nay: 5 (Lewis; Ebowed; Earl; Al; Moderate)
Yet to Vote: 2 (DWTL; Rob)

[Јas]

Result on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 3 (Sam; PBrunsel; Brandon)
Nay: 6 (Lewis; Ebowed; Earl; Al; Moderate; Rob)
Abstain [Didn't Vote]: 1 (DWTL)

The amendment fails.

[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.