SENATE BILL: Empowering Regions in Federal Elections Amendment (sent to regions)

[bgwah]

Empowering Regions in Federal Elections Amendment

1. A region's governing body shall have the authority to determine procedure for administration of voting and certification of election results for their own Class A Senate elections in the months of February, June, and October. A region's governing body shall also have the authority to administer voting and certification of election results for Presidential elections consistent with federal election law in the months of February, June, and October.
 
2. A region's governing body may determine the means of election to Class A Senate election.

3. To ensure a fair process of election, any alternative system of voting chosen by the region's governing body for Class A Senate elections must be conducted in public, on-site, and may not disqualify any candidate meeting the qualifications set in the Constitution.

4. If a region fails to open a vote for their Senator and President within 12 hours of when polls must open, a Federal Officer of the Executive Branch shall open the vote on behalf of the region.[/quote]

Sponsors: Marokai, Duke

[bgwah]

I really like having Senate elections in the same thread as President...

[bgwah]

I don't like having five separate voting booths for President at all. I want it all in the same thread!!!

[bgwah]

I think this bill will be good for regional activity at the local level. So far, it seems like the regions are removed from the entire process altogether, so I hope the senate and the President considers this.

So you want federal elections to looks like one of the recent IDS regional elections in which only three people did vote (and you weren't one of those three?)

It will be a mess. I mean, we're voting on ratifying one constitutional amendment right now and two regions (cough, Archangel, cough Snowstalker) are yet to open their damn booths.

At current stage I really don't want to handle this to the regional officials. We have Department of Federal Election which is doing a superb work.

Snowstalker opens the booths on time...
 
Having the Presidential election on the ballot will ensure maximum turnout and carry over to downballot elections too.

...Maybe Snowstalker does. But I seem to recall RowanBrandon not opening the voting booth and resigning when confronted about it.

I'm confident this will end up being a disaster. And I don't think it's fair to have regions voting for President at different times.

[bgwah]

I don't get why regions can't set up their voting threads on Thursday and having all voting start at midnight on Friday.

I don't understand why everyone can't having voting booths up. I had a perfect record when I ran the Pacific. But even the federal booths are late sometimes.

Mistakes happen.

What about the time the voting booth was mysteriously deleted? Just imagine only one voting booth being deleted. Maybe the Governor didn't like the result, or just wanted to cause chaos for fun. What would happen then? That regions gets to re-vote a week after everyone else?

[bgwah]

I just don't think it's fair to let one region know ahead of time that they get to decide an election.

[bgwah]

This will not change anything. People who are inactive and are coming here just to vote will still do the same, whether it's regionally-maintained or federally-maintained booth.

This bill is, IMO, a waste of time.

This Amendment goes far beyond just that one change. Though, at this point, this very obviously isn't going to pass whether it's written to cater to Napoleon or written to cater to everybody else.

I offer an amendment to remove "and certification of election results" from section 1.

Friendly. No problem with that.

I don't get why regions can't set up their voting threads on Thursday and having all voting start at midnight on Friday.

I don't understand why everyone can't having voting booths up. I had a perfect record when I ran the Pacific. But even the federal booths are late sometimes.

Mistakes happen.

What about the time the voting booth was mysteriously deleted? Just imagine only one voting booth being deleted. Maybe the Governor didn't like the result, or just wanted to cause chaos for fun. What would happen then? That regions gets to re-vote a week after everyone else?

That's an odd problem to lay against this one proposal. Would that actually happened? I seriously doubt it.

A SoFA deleted a voting booth before, yes.

[bgwah]

It'd be better to have an issue like that contained to one region than all five together.

Marokai accepted this as friendly. I forgot to the 24 hours thing, though, so:

Senators have 24 hours to object!

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed as friendly.

A few thoughts on this bill:

I think it'd be a lot better to keep Presidential elections centralized. Having a single Federal official certify all ballots adds a lot of consistency when it's a nationwide election.

You might want to specify in Section 3 that regions can only allow registered citizens to participate the election.

Also, you might want to put some sort of restriction on the election methods that regions may use for their Senate seats- For example, I don't know how you guys would feel about a region electing two Senators that each counted as half a Senator and thus got half a vote (or, taken to a extreme, a region that elects every citizen to the Senate, each with a fraction of a vote. This would be fun, but a nightmare for the PPT!).

Also, you should probably specify whether the Constitution's prohibitions against dual office holding would still count for the Class A Senate seats.

Or we could just realize that the current way we do voting booths, and have done so for almost 8 years, works fine and there's no reason to change that with the massive headache this amendment will surely cause.

[bgwah]

No, there isn't. It's basically one of the worst ideas ever.

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed as friendly.

A few thoughts on this bill:

I think it'd be a lot better to keep Presidential elections centralized. Having a single Federal official certify all ballots adds a lot of consistency when it's a nationwide election.

You might want to specify in Section 3 that regions can only allow registered citizens to participate the election.

Also, you might want to put some sort of restriction on the election methods that regions may use for their Senate seats- For example, I don't know how you guys would feel about a region electing two Senators that each counted as half a Senator and thus got half a vote (or, taken to a extreme, a region that elects every citizen to the Senate, each with a fraction of a vote. This would be fun, but a nightmare for the PPT!).

Also, you should probably specify whether the Constitution's prohibitions against dual office holding would still count for the Class A Senate seats.

Or we could just realize that the current way we do voting booths, and have done so for almost 8 years, works fine and there's no reason to change that with the massive headache this amendment will surely cause.

Works fine for who? The regions with three or four votes in their elections?

The Pacific Region always has decent turn-out in regional elections when we have a competitive race.

[bgwah]

And that doesn't mean Teddy cannot still verify them nationally just because they are all not in one thread.

This bill takes away the certification powers of the SOFA for Presidential and Class A Senate elections, though, so it actually would mean he couldn't verify them.

I understand you have a knack for identifying preposterous possible loophole interpretations in anything, but this is one I'm just not seeing, sorry. I even accepted Napoleon's amendment to remove the region's ability to certify election results, to keep it in the hands of the SoFE.

And you have a knack for supporting reform just for the sake of reform, even if it doesn't make sense.

[bgwah]

And keep in mind Senators, a majority of regions do not have their regional elections simultaneous with Presidential elections. This can't offer any "down ballot turnout boosting" benefits for my region, not that I buy that argument in the first place.

And regions with three votes? Where? The Southeast and Northeast are the only regions to hold their regional elections in February/June/October.

Looking at October's elections, the NE had 23 votes and SE had 12...

[bgwah]

I don't like this proposal either way, BUT, what if:

-Regional Senate elections were moved to April/August/December AND all regions held their other regional elections (like Governor) in these months

-At-large Senate elections were moved to February/June/October, in one big federal election booth with the Presidential election

Thus you would have at-large senate and Presidential elections together in a SoFE-administered booth, and regional Senate elections paired together with other regional elections.

[bgwah]

Yes, this would require three regions moving their elections to a different month. And yeah it would require a two month (or six month?! ) terms for Senators.

[bgwah]

Yes, this would require three regions moving their elections to a different month. And yeah it would require a two month (or six month?! ) terms for Senators.

If it were easy, Game Reform wouldn't be worth doing in the first place.

Something important to remember. If these problems were simple, we would've solved them by now. If these ideas were tiny, what would be the point? Want want to change things? Then we really have to change things.

After giving it further thought I think this is a great idea, and my concerns are just a hazard of having to go through with it. There will be a weird lopsided Senate term issue in the transition period, but such a thing is unavoidable.

It addresses the concerns of both sides, accomplishing the goal of both sides. It gives regions more power over their Senate elections, without compromising activity in Presidential elections, but also without fracturing the Presidential election into five unnecessary pieces. And frankly, I don't think it ever made sense to not have the at-large elections (at-large Senators and the President) at the same time anyway. Consider this correcting that error!

Would you like to make it into a formal Amendment, Bgwah? I'll also accept you as a co-sponsor if you like.

Well like I said, I'm not a fan of it either way... It just depends on how much you want me to campaign against it. Do you want me to vote nay but otherwise let the cards fall where they may, or have me heavily campaign against it?

[bgwah]

We're not voting on a motion to table. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.


nay

[bgwah]

Yes, this would require three regions moving their elections to a different month. And yeah it would require a two month (or six month?! ) terms for Senators.

If it were easy, Game Reform wouldn't be worth doing in the first place.

Something important to remember. If these problems were simple, we would've solved them by now. If these ideas were tiny, what would be the point? Want want to change things? Then we really have to change things.

After giving it further thought I think this is a great idea, and my concerns are just a hazard of having to go through with it. There will be a weird lopsided Senate term issue in the transition period, but such a thing is unavoidable.

It addresses the concerns of both sides, accomplishing the goal of both sides. It gives regions more power over their Senate elections, without compromising activity in Presidential elections, but also without fracturing the Presidential election into five unnecessary pieces. And frankly, I don't think it ever made sense to not have the at-large elections (at-large Senators and the President) at the same time anyway. Consider this correcting that error!

Would you like to make it into a formal Amendment, Bgwah? I'll also accept you as a co-sponsor if you like.

Well like I said, I'm not a fan of it either way... It just depends on how much you want me to campaign against it. Do you want me to vote nay but otherwise let the cards fall where they may, or have me heavily campaign against it?

I don't really understand what you find so objectionable. Especially under your version.

Because I'm fine with the status quo and see no reason to change it... The idea I proposed, I find much less objectionable than the original idea.

And I had another random thought. It would be possible to just switch which class is regional and which is at-large... So we would at-large elections in February and regional in April. This would basically mean 10 at-large seats for a two month period.

There would obviously be a few possible head aches with that method as well.

[bgwah]

With 2 ayes and 5 nays, the motion to table has failed. Debate resumes.

[bgwah]

Were you guys waiting for me to introduce an amendment?

[bgwah]

Eh, my heart's not really in it... But I'll make you a deal. If you write the amendments incorporating my suggestions, I'll vote to send it to the regions.

[bgwah]

Sponsor? Though it sounds like Yankee wants to do some fine tuning to it...

[bgwah]

It would only appear in the amendment's page... You could have the stuff you want permanately in the Constitution specified as "added to Article Whatever as Section Etc."

[bgwah]

I think that covers it all.

Anyway, looks like Marokai accepts as friendly, so 24 hours to object.

[bgwah]

An objection will make this take longer, just FYI.