SENATE BILL: 5th Amendment to the Proportional Representation Act (law'd)

[bgwah]

I'm giving this the forum affairs slot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: bgwah

[bgwah]

Why?

[bgwah]

Why not introduce an amendment then? The current system obviously doesn't work terribly well if we have to wait until two weeks after the swearing in date (which is almost a month after the initial election). I think this is a problem that needs to be fixed with one solution or another. That's what this thread is before---determining a solution. I've proposed one. That doesn't mean we can't come up with a better one via amendment.

[bgwah]

Well we're voting on a motion to table. Please vote aye, nay or abstain.


Nay. This is something we need to debate.

[bgwah]

Re-reading the OSPR, it looks like you can't motion to table until the 72 hour debate period has passed... But it's a little unclear. Thoughts, Yankee?

[bgwah]

Alright, that clears up my confusion. Thank you. The vote continues.

[bgwah]

The motion to table has failed. Debate resumes.

[bgwah]

It's alright. If you don't like my proposed change, what would you prefer?

[bgwah]

What about something like this (not an official amendment yet):

Section 1, Clause 2 shall be amended to read:
2) Clause 7 shall be added to Section 3 and read "Should a candidate or candidates be certified victorious in an at-large STV election and concede the seat prior to the date on which they are to swear-in, a special election will be held as if the seat were already vacant.

That last part might be a little vague. I can't recall which law deals with special elections, since it would be easier to cite that.

[bgwah]

No comment?

[bgwah]

Well yes I would be more specific, and cite another part of the PRA dealing with special elections. But I was just wondering, for those who dislike my original idea, if something along the lines of that proposal would be preferable.

[bgwah]

What would you guys think about just letting the parties choose a replacement?

This would be most beneficial to a party that could only win 1/5 seats, but not a 1 seat special election. So this isn't me trying to craft something that would be beneficial to the JCP...

[bgwah]

Oh heck, let's just settle it with amendment votes. Here is what I am proposing first. If this fails, I'll just go for special elections for all concessions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[bgwah]

Aye

[bgwah]

I like elections too but having them one week after the other is excessive, IMO. And as I said earlier, one thing I like about at-large elections is it gives smaller parties a chance that they may not necessarily have in a one seat election. It would be a bummer for them to lose their seat like that.

[bgwah]

This can be taken advantage of easily (and if it passes I hope this is attempted). One party could run a very popular candidate who may not want to actually be a Senator and then for four months we can deal with having an inactive extremist who was never elected as a Senator.

If Duke is elected President he could be replaced by JCL!

That is deliciously evil. Let's do it. Change your vote to aye!

[bgwah]

The current tally is 5-4, with Officepark left.

I have to say, we've been having a lot of close votes lately. That's always fun.

[bgwah]

Now is not constitutional?

[bgwah]

But it's not a vacancy. It's a concession from a Senator-elect. I think that's different.

[bgwah]

Although interestingly enough, that means the six week thing should probably be clarified, if presumably we can't have a special election unless there are less than three weeks until the next general election. The current law uses six weeks left of it... Hmm, should probably fix this while we're at it.

[bgwah]

But it's not a vacancy. It's a concession from a Senator-elect. I think that's different.

In that case, the appointment of officepark was not in a vacancy, and so was illegal.

No. What you cited specifies Class B seats (at-large). The same article you cited says Class A seats (regional) are appointed by the Governor. And we have of course since passed an amendment giving regions more power over how they deal with their vacancies.

[bgwah]

With 5 ayes, 4 nays, and 1 non-voting abstention, the amendment has passed.

[bgwah]

I'm proposing the following amendment to deal with another aspect of the PRA that I thought of thanks to Shua:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Explanation: This changes very little about the current law. Since the Constitution pretty clearly says special elections are to be held for at-large seats when there are less than three weeks before the next election, I thought we should just update the PRA to say that instead of six weeks before the end of the term. Six weeks is about the same amount of time, but it could probably be five or seven weeks depending on the month.

Thoughts? Questions?

[bgwah]

But it's not a vacancy. It's a concession from a Senator-elect. I think that's different.

In that case, the appointment of officepark was not in a vacancy, and so was illegal.

No. What you cited specifies Class B seats (at-large). The same article you cited says Class A seats (regional) are appointed by the Governor. And we have of course since passed an amendment giving regions more power over how they deal with their vacancies.

If a concession for a Class B Senator-elect does not constitute a vacancy, then a concession for a Class A Senator-elect does not constitute a vacancy either.

And as far as I can tell this law has been in place for years... So what's your point?

[bgwah]

Or was your point that tmth conceded his seat, and that the Officepark appointment was illegal?