Northeast Assembly Thread

[homelycooking]

La cucina brutta, can I give you the assignment to PM the other Representatives and ask them to work with you to elect a Speaker and to send me a name for a new Lieutenant Governor?

Sure. And please, call me "homely".

[homelycooking]

What a farce. The session is about 1/8 done, and nothing has been accomplished. Where the hell are elyski, redcommander, FallenMorgan...?

[homelycooking]

If Redcommander swears in, a majority will be four Assemblymen.

[homelycooking]

Speaker:

[X] homelycooking

[homelycooking]

Next vote decides the election. Elyski must vote - otherwise, we're at an impasse.

[homelycooking]

Winfield, Cincinnatus, Napoleon, I appreciate your desire to keep this session moving forward, but I see this in the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act and worry that my assuming the job of Speaker is not legal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I received 50% of the vote, as did Wormyguy. Neither of us attained a majority, unless Winfield claims that he is a member of the Assembly as well.

I'm sorry, but I only want the proper procedure to be followed, and I don't want to be an illegal Speaker.

[homelycooking]

Well, Redcommander hasn't sworn in, and thus isn't yet a member of the Assembly. That leaves myself, Cincinnatus, Elyski, Wormy and FallenMorgan. I thought a candidate for speaker would need three of five votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's obviously right, but the Lt. Governor's vote could resolve the tie without bringing it into accordance with the Northeast Assembly Speaker Act. I don't think that law means anything other than what it says, Winfield: a Speaker must recieve support from a majority of the Assembly, active or inactive. Note:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, nonetheless, we should take this up with cinyc.

[homelycooking]

What about NiK? Bullmoose? Obamaisdabest? Seriously, now we're grasping at straws.

[homelycooking]

For the sake of continued progress, I will accept the office of Speaker.

I do so with a great amount of regret and hesitation, as I still do not believe that I have been elected properly, with the support of a majority of the vote of the members of the Assembly.

But the time has come to stop my anal-retentive insistence upon making sure that every law is reconciled with reality in the most perfect way possible. In doing so, I have shown a remarkable amount of immaturity, and I apologize for that mainly to Winfield, who has been in the right most of the time while I nitpicked and hemmed and hawed.

I hope the Assembly can forgive me. I would completely understand if they decided to elect a different Speaker at this time, but I hope they could let me get to work at paying the Northeast back its two weeks of time that I so needlessly wasted.

[homelycooking]

It shall not. Without objection, I withdraw that bill from consideration.

The Assembly shall now consider the following bill, proposed by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Marokai Blue. Though the gentleman no longer is a member of this body, it is only proper that his bill, proposed during his tenure as a Northeast Assemblyman, is considered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have invited Mr. Marokai to speak on behalf of his bill. Otherwise, the floor is open for debate, which shall last for 48 hours.

[homelycooking]

A Note from the Speaker

While the bill is being considered, any new information regarding the appointment of a new Lt. Governor will gladly recieve an audience on the floor.

In the interest of time, members, should you wish to truncate the period of time allotted for debate or voting, please indicate your desire by declaring "Motion to suspend SOAP 3a/3d/3f", etc. The Assembly will then consider your motion.

[homelycooking]

I agree that the language is vague, and while I agree that gun safety is important, this specific clause does not have my support.  I motion to suspend SOAP 3a, 3d, 3f, in order to decrease debate time 12 hours.

On the motion to suspend SOAP 3a, 3d and 3f by the gentleman from New York, please vote aye or nay. This vote will last 24 hours, per SOAP, and will be concurrent with debate on the "The Crime is What Actually Matters Act".

[homelycooking]

Aye

[homelycooking]

I was under the assumption HC wanted to make it relevant or abolish it if that couldn't be done.  Nonetheless, it was you that publicly wanted to get rid of the position, so glad we clarified.

That's true. I want the Lt. Governor position to be made useful if possible or to be abolished if necessary.
Napoleon, however, has always favored eliminating that position.

Edit:  There's still a vote going on.  Sorry for interrupting it

I wouldn't worry so much about that, unless you expect Elyski/FM/wormy to show up.

[homelycooking]

On the motion to suspend SOAP 3a, 3d and 3f by the gentleman from New York, please vote aye or nay. This vote will last 24 hours, per SOAP, and will be concurrent with debate on the "The Crime is What Actually Matters Act".

The ayes are two and the nays are three. The motion has not achieved the support of a majority of the members of this assembly; therefore it is not agreed to. (Note: SOAP instructs absences and abstensions in votes to be counted as nays)

Debate on the "The Crime is What Actually Matters Act" will continue until 11:41 this evening.

[homelycooking]

The Crime is What Actually Matters Act will now come to a vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye; those opposed, nay. This will be a 24-hour vote.

[homelycooking]

I'll add this: while the former Vice President has shown humility and regret for his actions unmatched by others, I think Dallasfan has a chance to truly serve his region in this position. I therefore request him to change his mind.

If Winfield calls upon me, I will accept this time, although I would like the Representatives to bear in mind my situation is rather.. precarious, and you may find yourselves holding another recommendation vote soon.

We have no other viable names at this point.

Also: Aye on the bill.

[homelycooking]

On the previous question the ayes are three; the nays are zero. The bill is hereby passed.

The House will now consider the next bill in the queue.

Write-in Votes Act

I. Any person who wishes to accept write-in votes cast at an election for himself or herself must declare, in the Candidate Declaration Thread, that he or she will accept write-in votes at least twenty-four hours before the opening of a regional election.
II. No candidate shall be declared elected to any office of the Northeast who has neither declared his acceptance of write-in votes in the manner prescribed in section I of this Act nor secured a place on a regional ballot by declaring his candidacy at least seven days before the opening of a regional election.
III. All write-in votes cast for persons who have neither declared his acceptance of write-in votes in the manner prescribed in section I of this Act nor secured a place on a regional ballot by declaring his candidacy at least seven days before the opening of a regional election shall be considered null and void.
IV. A write-in vote, cast for a candidate who has secured a place on a regional ballot by declaring his candidacy at least seven days before the opening of a regional election, shall not be construed to have not been cast for that candidate.
V. A person's casting of a write-in vote for himself or herself at a regional election shall not be construed to constitute acceptance of write-in votes, unless that person has already declared his acceptance of write-in votes in accordance with section I of this Act.

Debate will last 48 hours - until midnight Thursday night.

As the sponsor of this bill, I will speak to its merits tomorrow (today, after I get some sleep)

[homelycooking]

I do not believe that this bill restricts voters' choice in an election. Indeed, sections II, III and IV merely clarify the status of write-in votes and write-in candidates and ought not to be controversial by themselves. The major advance that I think this bill makes is to prevent candidates from being elected merely by writing themselves in.

I believe that an election ought to be decided by every voter, rendering his individual judgment on the people who have placed themselves before the electorate as candidates. Nothing should be done to make it more difficult for candidates to run for office, which is why I'd support making chronological limits on candidacy declaration much more lenient. I do not think, however, that our Region should sanction the oft-employed mechanism by which a candidate not having previously declared his desire to serve the Region in one of our various offices is elected to office by the vote of himself. This arrangement actually hinders voters' ability to choose their own assemblymen, for if there are a great number of excess seats that could not be filled by declared candidates, as is currently the case in elections for this body, any voter can write himself in and subvert the processes of debate and deliberation that are so crucial to democracy. The only choice, therefore, that my bill restricts in an election is a voter's choice to write himself in on a ballot and become elected to a seat that reasonable democratic principles would suggest he does not deserve.

[homelycooking]

It is my firm conviction that someone who wishes to serve the people of the Northeast owes them at the very least to announce in some form before the election that he or she will be a candidate. The goal of this bill is not to eliminate write-in candidacies - it is to eliminate the possibility of a person becoming elected who received no vote excepting his own.

To the points of Governor Winfield:

There can be little doubt but what this bill was precipitated by my election as Lieutenant Governor and Representative, and of some others election as Representatives, as write in candidates in the most recent election.

I do agree with two previous statements on this issue, that being this bill is indeed restrictive.  I see no harm in write in candidates seeking election, simply by indicating their willingness to accept the office by voting for themselves as a write in candidate.  Why should they have to declare their intentions beforehand?  

A candidate should have to declare his intentions beforehand because the people of the Northeast deserve to know before they cast their ballot which of their fellow citizens are seeking office, so that they can vote accordingly to help elect or defeat their favorite or least favorite candidates. Why should certain candidates have the privilege of not needing to concern themselves with the electorate's judgment?

Atlasia elections are meant to be as all encompassing as possible, and restricting them by disallowing straight write in candidates as now allowed, could lead to less interest in seeking office.  

I disagree that this bill will lead to less interest. Perhaps it will frustrate those who were hoping to win election by their vote alone, but if they desired to honestly serve the people of the Northeast, they would declare their candidacies before the election. In a legislature such as ours with so many seats and so few candidates willing to fill those seats, under a system where one's decree is sufficient to win election to an office, why should candidates bother to declare their intentions at all if they can write themselves in and get elected?

Note: "those" is purely abstract. I am not referring to anyone in this region by that word. Even if certain elected officials emulate "those" by their actions, I have no right to judge their intentions.

[homelycooking]

As an aside, if we want to discuss real electoral reform, I would recommend eliminating the 20 minute time frame in which one can change or nullify their vote.  Once a vote is cast, it should remain as is, with no option to change it.   

I could agree to that. But that's another matter for another debate.

[homelycooking]

At least if there are no declared candidates or no candidates declaring they will be write in candidates, if general write ins are allowed, as under current law, that office would be filled.

It may be that potential candidates do not declare because they know that if no one else does, there is no need to. If my bill passes, those candidates would be required to declare. I'm not convinced that being required to do this will stop candidates from seeking office.

The Assembly was designed to elect Representatives proportionally as opposed to through special elections. This law would exacerbate our problems by essentially guaranteeing that all declared candidates win, even if voters prefer a late entry write in.

I do not believe that "late-entry" should be allowed to encompass the days during which the election is being held.

[homelycooking]

Nevertheless, no matter the spin put on this bill, it has a very major flaw, in that it could, potentially, leave an office or offices unfilled, as there is always the possibility that for a certain office or for certain offices, that no one will declare, therefore, leaving that office vacant, necessatating a special election, and special elections are something we want to avoid wherever possible.

And then the issue becomes, what if no one declares for the special election?  

Won't happen you say?  It is always a possibility, and this bill does not address this possibility.  

This bill simply falls short in addressing these issues, and, in my view, fails the democracy test.

Even in the real world, write ins are allowed.

Write-ins are allowed in the real world, sure, but not before the write-in candidates submit the necessary paperwork, signatures, etc. to become official write-in candidates. A candidate who did not take this step in the real world would not be permitted to take office even if he recieved the majority of the votes. A majority of voters, voting for Mickey Mouse for president, will not elect Mickey Mouse because he did not (and cannot) declare his candidacy.

What is the "democracy test", in your view?

You make a valid point, however, about unfilled offices. Indeed, my bill doesn't address this, as you've said. If no one declares their candidacy for an office, then I believe that sends a signal to the regional government that that office should be consolidated or otherwise done away with. In the mean time, a special election should be held. That would give anyone who observed that that office was up for grabs the opportunity to declare their candidacy and win that position. If no one declares for the special election, hold another one or abolish the office. The answer to a government so big that no one wants to run for its myriad offices is not to lower the standards of democracy - it is to shrink that government by eliminating those unnecessary positions.

[homelycooking]

The time allotted for debate on this measure has expired. Members will vote aye or nay on the bill at question. This will be a 24 hour vote ending at midnight tomorrow.

[homelycooking]

Aye