Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[minionofmidas]

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

[minionofmidas]

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

Ah, apologies. I'd suggets either bring a friendly amendment;

Consider it brought.

[minionofmidas]

Nay

[minionofmidas]

Okay, so this very silly countback notion seems not to be going anywhere, if I were to vote for it just in order to swing Brandon's vote.
So, I'll safely vote for the preferable option:

Nay.

[minionofmidas]

Nay

[minionofmidas]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

[minionofmidas]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

But it isn't as if these are long-term appointments. Some of the term would have already passed, so it's really no different than a Governor appointing a Regional Senator to fill a term now.

Which is bad enough, and is a holdover from US laws. But is not the same as this - naming your own successor is just... well it goes very much against the grain of what democracy is supposed to be about.

[minionofmidas]

Not to mention that this even applies in the case of an impeached etc Senator. The whole matter is that "a vacancy has arisen". Heck, I could name say MissCatholic (when she was still around) as my no.1 successor for the simple reason of scaring the Senate out of expelling me.

This idea just fails at every level.

[minionofmidas]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

But it isn't as if these are long-term appointments. Some of the term would have already passed, so it's really no different than a Governor appointing a Regional Senator to fill a term now.

Which is bad enough, and is a holdover from US laws. But is not the same as this - naming your own successor is just... well it goes very much against the grain of what democracy is supposed to be about.

But the successor isn't anywhere close to permanent, serving only a few months. That doesn't seem undemocratic at all.

Well we're only electing people for "only a few months", but I don't think just having the entire Senate appointed by the Chief Justice would be "democratic" to you either, now would it?

[minionofmidas]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

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

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
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.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

[minionofmidas]

I thought this was a constitutional amendment, but I guess it's not. I didn't think one could change the electoral system without one.

The constitutional amendment that goes with this bill is in a separate thread (End to Districts Amendment). We don't want all these detailed rules clustering up the Constitution.

And unlike Colin and Verily, yes I do think it would be possible for the Senate to make rules for how the parties fill Senate vacancies. This is election law, not "internal party business". I just don't think detailed rules on that would help us much here.

[minionofmidas]

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.

I was actually speaking to the fact that if both were passed (and the amendment ratified), then the Senate could, in the future, fundamentally change the game with the approval of a scant 7 people total—which is what, fewer than 10%?  That is what I oppose.

Except that an amendment would have to be approved by the electorate. Well, no, that's not true; the electorate of a given number of regions. Amendments have been approved by the electorate overall but still failed.

He means: After the amendment passes. (ie the Senate could go back to districts despite continued popular support for STV.)

[minionofmidas]

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.

I agree. As I outlined in my opposition to the popular initiative amendment, changing the voting system is one of those things that should be put to a referendum.

Let's move this debate over to the constitutional amendment thread, fellas. That's where it would seem to belong.

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[minionofmidas]

Nay

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[minionofmidas]

(suppresses tears of joy)
Aye.

Do I count to six?