Northern Regional Committee

[cinyc]

I assume our work has to be done in public.  The regional government board seems like the most logical place to do our work.  Should we have multiple threads, one for the Senate election and one or more for the constitution?  We can break the constitution into parts.

Should we first elect a chair and adopt rules for passage?  I assume we'd require a majority vote - of all reps or of just voting reps?  Is a 24 hour or 48 hour voting period after a motion for cloture agreed to by the chair a good start?  Or do we want a set time limit for each piece followed by a set time limit for a vote, like the Northeast Assembly?

[cinyc]

I fourth the motion.

I think the Senate election should be held next weekend, 12:00 EDT Friday to 11:59PM EDT Sunday - EDT so that the election supervisor can start the vote an hour earlier than the usual 1AM.  I suggest using STV voting rules.  We can specify that the voting rules of the Consolidated Northeastern Election Law apply, if we want to further flesh out how to handle the STV vote (they're almost identical to the old Atlasian regs, but I don't know where to find them).  That would also give voters a 20-minute edit period and 7-day residency requirement (assuming it's not overturned by the Supreme Court) for a vote to count. 

If we can decide who gets the longer term, I'd suggest that the person elected first under the STV rules or with the highest surplus be given the longer term.  If there is a tie, we'd look to second preferences, then a game of chance.

We also need someone to run the election.  I can do it if you want.  I have been running Northeast elections for a while, and am comfortable doing so.

[cinyc]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I like the SOAP, I'm not sure that it would lead to a prompt resolution of things.  The voting periods are 48 hours, and debates must last at least 36 but no more than 168 hours, unless there is a formal vote to extend.  We might be better off creating our own rules, modeled on the former Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I simply don't think we have that power. 

A few proposed amendments to 3:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I prefer "North".

[cinyc]

Nay

[cinyc]

Increasing the number of offices isn't a good idea.  At least one of the old "regions" was taken over by expansion in the number of Nyman offices.  So the supposed increase in regional size isn't as big as it first looks.

[cinyc]

Since nobody has proposed a formal bill since the rules were adopted, let me propose one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

I would recommend two separate IRV elections to determine our Senators, much like the other regions are doing.

Why are they doing that?  It's easier to administer one election than two.  We also have to get around the problem of no one declaring for the shorter-term seat because the term is so short.

[cinyc]

I consider evergreen's amendment friendly.

[cinyc]

So to clarify what class of senators are we electing?

In my proposal, both, in one election.  The second-place finisher gets the shorter term, whichever one that might be (which, as Poirot has pointed out, is unclear).  But others have objected to this formulation.

I'd prefer not to appoint anyone if we can avoid it. I think the other regions are doing it wrong.

[cinyc]

One amendment since it's getting late and people need more time to declare:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

Unfriendly.  I don't think this unaccountable committee should be appointing members, no matter how short the term is.  Let the voters decide.  The other regions simply got this wrong.

Plus, I don't think it is clear that the June seat is the shorter one.  Poirot has made arguments that there is no date specified for a Senate election in the Atlasian constitution, and it's already June 1.

Given the shortness of time before the proposed election day, I move for an immediate vote on the amendment.

[cinyc]

Nay

[cinyc]

With three votes in favor, three against, and one delegate abstaining, the amendment has fallen short of a majority and has therefore FAILED.

Okay, now what happens?  We need to pass something fairly soon, or we won't be able to hold an election this weekend.

[cinyc]

Am I the only one who finds it suspect that Federalists are appointments in the regions where they're strongest- and going for elections in the North?

Neither evergreen nor I are federalists.  My rationale for holding only one election is that it's unclear whether someone elected in June will have to vacate the seat for a later election this month, but if they do, nobody will run for the shorter seat.  And if they don't (a very good argument can be made that if a Senator is elected in June, he or she can sit until the next election for that class (October?), we're in a better position than the other regions, who think they will have an election that might not happen.

I just don't think an unaccountable committee like this should be selecting Senators.  And, arguably, it's unconsitutional because the article setting up this committee says that we can set up the election of Senators, not the selection of senators.

[cinyc]

What's going to solve this stalemate?  Two separate elections? 

In any event, this election isn't starting at 12:00AM Friday.  We've already blown past the proposed declaration deadline.

[cinyc]

If we're holding the multiple elections next weekend, can we constitutionally specify that the person elected to the June seat will remain in office until October?  I don't think the Fourth Constitution requires another June election - it just says the election for the Senator has to be in June.  And this will be.

[cinyc]

Proposed changes, almost all to section 2.  I don't know which seat is the Class I and which is the Class II seat, so I've put those in brackets.  Please tell me if I'm wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

I fixed the classes, and changed "until" October/August to "through" October/August, to make it clear that they will serve the portions of those months until we hold elections (or whatever we ultimately decide to do for regional Senators).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[cinyc]

Evergreen's amendment seems about right. Truman, can we move to a final vote?

The relevant federal law, the Proportional Representation Act, which we used in the Northeast for all elections, is called PR-STV.  I think changing STV to IRV only adds confusion about how votes are to be counted.  There is nothing called "IRV" defined in federal law.

evergreen - did you mean a simple majority of votes or a simple majority of those who voted on the amendments?  This matters, because there will be people who abstain or don't vote on the amendments.  There always are.  I'd propose the voters voting in the election.

It's actually up to Truman and me.  I get a say in this under the rules.  I'm not quite ready there, until I hear back from evergreen.

[cinyc]

The Proportional Representation Act is presumably only used when the point of an election is to achieve "proportional representation." The concept of proportional representation is wholly irrelevant when there is only one winner in a given election.

I sincerely doubt that the STV voting system has been used in all Northeastern elections, as elections in which there is only one winner (Governor, Regional Senator, etc.) cannot by definition be conducted using STV.

IRV, on the other hand, is the ranked voting system used when only one candidate can win in a given election. I'm not under the impression that terms must be defined by federal law for us to use them, as long as said terms have very clear common definitions. I fail to understand how using the correct voting system "adds confusion" to the process of counting the votes.

I hate to go on a diatribe here, but if the point of this bill is to choose the electoral system under which our Senators are elected, we should use the correct voting system. Thanks!

All Northeast elections since I remember have been held under the PR-STV provisions of the Proportional Representation Act, as later codified into Northeast law, including single-member elections like Governor and special elections for Senator.  The denominator of the fraction to determine the quota becomes 2, and it essentially is just as if you're holding an election where the winner can only win if he receives a majority of preferences, including second- or third- preferences of the also-rans.  Obviously, there are no surpluses to reallocate, as there can only be one winner.

I, like most Northerners, don't know exactly how the IRV rules would work, an I don't want to put something that is undefined into this election law - especially if I am called on to run the election in the absence of the Chair.

[cinyc]

Elections in which only one candidate can win simply cannot be held using the STV system. I'm sorry if people are under the impression that the Northeast should have been using STV for past elections, but we might as well start using the correct system sooner than later.

I appreciate your having explained your version of calculating single-winner election results using STV, but that doesn't make the use of STV in single-winner elections acceptable. The purpose of the new Constitution is to fix errors in the old system and improve upon the existing one; I see no reason for us to continue to use an electoral system that by definition does not work in single-winner elections if we have the opportunity to "introduce" the correct one.

I really do doubt that most Northerners have some sort of unwavering desire to use an incorrect voting system just because it's apparently been used in the past. The IRV system is in no way "undefined" and cannot possibly be "confusing"; the rules to calculating the votes under IRV are very clear and very simple, and there are no variations of the system to be disputed.

Frankly, even if you are the one calculating the votes in this election, we should be basing the system we use to count the votes off of which system is the most accurate rather than the one you prefer to use. There is no lack of clarity or definition when using the IRV system as opposed to the false version of STV we’ve apparently been using in past elections; if we have been using the wrong system for all these years then there's no better time than now to change it.

Using IRV in our single-member elections will require no change in policy or legislation whatsoever; the government does not need to define a term in order for us to use it.

I don't know what IRV is.  It is not defined anywhere in Atlasian law, and you are making no attempt to explain what it is, just using the phrase  IRV over and over again.  How can I agree to use a vote counting system that I don't know or understand?

Is the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act still in effect?  What if we say that the winner shall be determined in accordance with Section 2 of that Act, with a vote of this Commission deciding which candidate to eliminate in the case of total number of preference ties among those candidates.

[cinyc]

As Truman has clarified that we can use an electoral system of our choosing and evergreen has clarified Section 4 of the bill, can we move to a final vote? We really should get going. Here is my recommended final version, which is the same as evergreen's with the only modification being in Section 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Looks good, except you're counting abstains as nays.  I think evergreen wanted abstains to be treated as a void vote, so that we'd only count ayes and nays.  I don't care as long as we have a clear written rule.

I'll give evergreen up to midnight Eastern to tell us if she's okay with that change.  After that time, we can proceed to a vote as long as Harry says so - or before that time if evergreen gives us the go ahead.

[cinyc]

Okay.  I have no problem holding a vote now.

[cinyc]

Aye

[cinyc]

I oppose increasing the number of offices above 6 or 7. We had many problems filling a 5 member Assembly in the Northeast.  Even though the region is larger, there are now at least an old region's worth of new offices in Nyman.  So there really isn't much leeway to add new officers without having boring, uncompetitive elections.

I would only support a part-at-large, part-district legislature if it is capped at 5 total members.   I don't support bicameralism. 

Perhaps we should first vote on whether the new legislature should be bicameral or unicameral?