Senate Residency Requirement Amendment

[12th Doctor]

Aye

[Sam Spade]

Nay.

[MasterJedi]

Nay

[jokerman]

Abstain

[King]

Nay.

[Gabu]

This amendment now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Joe Republic]

Nay

I thought you supported this bill?

I'm surprised this doesn't have more support than it does.  It's the best deterrent against carpet-bagging I can think of.

[King]

This amendment now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

We still need on more Aye:

Aye 1
Nay 4
Abstain 1

[Gabu]

This amendment now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

We still need on more Aye:

Aye 1
Nay 4
Abstain 1

It's a constitutional amendment; 4 out of 9 is 44% against, and constitutional amendments only need greater than 33% against.

[King]

This amendment now has enough votes to fail; senators now have 24 hours to change their votes.

We still need on more Aye:

Aye 1
Nay 4
Abstain 1

It's a constitutional amendment; 4 out of 9 is 44% against, and constitutional amendments only need greater than 33% against.

Ah, I forgot about super-majorities!

I'm surprised this doesn't have more support than it does.  It's the best deterrent against carpet-bagging I can think of.

The language is hard to avoid (people would still have to wait 2 months after redistricting to run if they get changed) and it is my personal belief the Senate shouldn't put more restrictions on who can't and can run after we had an election with nothing but unopposed races.

[Gabu]

I'm surprised this doesn't have more support than it does.  It's the best deterrent against carpet-bagging I can think of.

Personally, I don't feel that the federal government needs to institute a deterrent against carpetbagging.  The people in the region or district that the person is running in should be able to decide whether or not they want to allow a carpetbagger to represent them.

[Colin]

Nay

[MasterJedi]

Nay

I thought you supported this bill?

I'm surprised this doesn't have more support than it does.  It's the best deterrent against carpet-bagging I can think of.

I did a little in the beginning but then it just kept hitting me in the wrong way.

[Sam Spade]

I thought you supported this bill?

I'm surprised this doesn't have more support than it does.  It's the best deterrent against carpet-bagging I can think of.

Gabu and King's rationale agrees with my own.  The citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether they want a carpetbagger in office or not, not the federal government.

[jokerman]

There are occasions when carpetbagging is nessecary (Such as King challenging NixonNow), so a federal law would be too interefering.  I think the best way for us to stop unnessecary carpetbagging is for the voters themselves to show that it won't work in the elections.

[12th Doctor]

Wow... I never thought that such a common sense provision was going to fail.

[Gabu]

Wow... I never thought that such a common sense provision was going to fail.

If it's "such a common sense provision", can you give an answer to those who don't feel that the federal government needs to ban carpetbagging?  We've still got time for people to change their votes.

[12th Doctor]

Wow... I never thought that such a common sense provision was going to fail.

If it's "such a common sense provision", can you give an answer to those who don't feel that the federal government needs to ban carpetbagging?  We've still got time for people to change their votes.

I already told you... a person who moves to a region or district is not allowed to vote if their move is less than one month before the election, but we allow people to come in 10 days before the election to run for the Senate!?  Does that make any sense at all?

Not to mention that anyone from any district can move in and take on a weak incumbent if they so choose, and, although we hope that the voters will make the common sense choice, but past voting patterns have proven that avatar voting is a strong force.

I generally believe in the voters, but this is something that must be left up to law.

[Sam Spade]

I already told you... a person who moves to a region or district is not allowed to vote if their move is less than one month before the election, but we allow people to come in 10 days before the election to run for the Senate!?  Does that make any sense at all?

I didn't know this was the case.  The only relevant clause in the Constitution I can find is this one:

Article 5, Section 2, Clause 4:  In order to vote or be a canidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election.

This implies to me that you cannot vote in an election unless it is more than ten days after you register or after you switch regions or districts.  The same implication is there for candidates also.

If you can point out to me the clause where a person is not allowed to vote in a region or district until one month after he moves, whereas you can move and register as a candidate 10 days before an election, I'll be happy to change my vote because that would make no sense at all.

[jokerman]

We don't need more government regulations.  As I said before, the citizens who vote have full power to punish carpetbaggers in the polling booth.  If they didn't vote for carpetbaggers themselves, we wouldn't have the problem.

[12th Doctor]

I already told you... a person who moves to a region or district is not allowed to vote if their move is less than one month before the election, but we allow people to come in 10 days before the election to run for the Senate!?  Does that make any sense at all?

I didn't know this was the case.  The only relevant clause in the Constitution I can find is this one:

Article 5, Section 2, Clause 4:  In order to vote or be a canidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election.

This implies to me that you cannot vote in an election unless it is more than ten days after you register or after you switch regions or districts.  The same implication is there for candidates also.

If you can point out to me the clause where a person is not allowed to vote in a region or district until one month after he moves, whereas you can move and register as a candidate 10 days before an election, I'll be happy to change my vote because that would make no sense at all.

I appologize for that.  The law under the old Constitution was a month.  I was unaware of the change.

That does not, however, change my oppinion of the current standard.  Or our need to protect the integrity of the electoral system.  Atlasia is not like the United States in this regard.  I the real world, only a very high profile candidate can run in a region that they are not from.  Fame is not an issue in Atlasia since most political figures are well known.  Thus, any person can stand back, wait to see which race has the weakest choice of candidates and then jump in and use avatar or personality cult to achieve success.  I certainly don't think tat is right, as it does not give other groups or parties much reaction time.  Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.  What I think we need to disceuss is what is right for the future of Atlasia.  If we allow big wigs to jump into any race that suits them, it is going to become very difficult for lesser knowns and fresh faces to run successful campaigns.  I plead with and implore my fellow Senators to take a second look at this. 

[Gabu]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

[12th Doctor]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

[12th Doctor]

I also feel a high measure of personal responsability in the failures that have become my legislative proposals over the past week, because the timing was highly inconvienient for me, in my personal life and I wish I could make up for lost time here, but I can't, I simply ask for more time on this bill.

[Gabu]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?