Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Јas]

When will my bill come out?

Nobody can give you an accurate answer to that questioin in terms of what date your bill will appear. By my count it's currently 11th in the list and could also be overtaken by subsequent legislation re: forum affairs; constitutional amendments; or emergency matters. (Though it's also possible that one or two of a particular Senator's bills could be quickly removed due to frivolity.)

Will it be in the next senate?

It certainly won't be in this one (unless the PPT and VP decide for some reason that it's of such importance as to warrant consideration immediately).

Can I get it to be tabled until then as I do not believe I have the votes to pass it now.

I've never seen such a procedure used before here. Not that it matters as this Senate won't deal with it anyway.

As to the make up of the Senate, I'm not sure whether it would be worth postponing (even if that were possible). The Senators from District 1 and District 5 are almost certain to be returned.

It seems to me that in District 4, Brandon H has a significant advantage over Lewis (particularly in the Southern states which dominate the district) and should get re-elected.

District 3 isn't easy to call (PBrunsel v Wildcard) but both being of the centre-right would represent a shift from Lewis's position on the left.

District 2 also not an easy call. There's a core conservative vote of 4/5, but a solid latent leftist vote which may or may not turnout and even then may not be enthused by your opponent. A reasonable effort by someone to attract that vote would probably pay dividends.

[Јas]

I have decided to remove the Anti-Emo Bill and the Prohibition of My Chemical Romance Bill from the Senate queue for being frivolous and direct violations of the constitutional protection of free speech.

Thanks- good move.

^^^^^
Agreed.

[Јas]

These bills should be moved along quicker.  For example, Opebo Day, something we are almost all against has clogged us up for 12 days.

If it wasn't for the silly tabling motion, it would have been defeated by now.

^^^^

[Јas]

The Introduction to Atlasia Act could be implemented without a bill passing the Senate, though in the form of a bill, the thing is more concrete and less flexible though than if the executive were to act on his own.

This is true, but legislatively mandating such a thread will hopefully ensure that it will continue beyond the lifetime of any particular executive in a standardised but hopefully up-to-date manner.

The Bill does also allow for flexibility for the SoFA to mention such matters relevant to law or the state of the forum as he may consider expedient. Also, the Senate shall of course be free to amend the statement as it sees fit by altering the passage, adding some additional material, or allowing for more defined fleixibility for SoFAs to work within.

Finally, it also provides a small incentive for parties to be somewhat organised. Major parties will have the benefit of advertisement to newbies, increasing their awareness and possibly leading to increased memberships.

[Јas]

FWIW, here are my opening thoughts on the proposed legislation:

1st Bill - Will support in present form

2nd Bill - Undecided (e.g. I really see no reason for clause b and the rest I am unsure about)

(a), (b) and (c) I figured were the 3 most logical options which should be open to the sponsor: motion to accept the redraft completely; reject the redraft completely; or allow the Senate to consider the bill in it's redrafted form. I don't really understand why (b) in particular would be unworthy. Please explain further so that I can understand your position more fully with a view to a possible pre-emptive amendment before it hits the floor.

3rd Bill - Will oppose in any form

4th Bill - Will oppose in present form, but I could certainly support with some modifications

What modifications would you suggest and why?

5th Bill - Undecided (very undecided actually)

Would you care to elucidate?

I don't mean to effectively open debate on these matters now, however when they do reach the Senate floor, I would hope that their progress be as smooth as possible. I respect your work on forum affairs matters and so I would be particularly keen to hear your grievances/concerns.

[Јas]

2nd Bill - (a), (b) and (c) I figured were the 3 most logical options which should be open to the sponsor: motion to accept the redraft completely; reject the redraft completely; or allow the Senate to consider the bill in it's redrafted form. I don't really understand why (b) in particular would be unworthy. Please explain further so that I can understand your position more fully with a view to a possible pre-emptive amendment before it hits the floor.

Here is what I have in mind:

1. If the President vetoes and proposes a "redraft", the sponsor may choose to 1) file an "approve the redraft" motion or 2) withdraw the legislation.

2. If the sponsor wishes to file an "approve the redraft" motion and the motion is approved, then the redrafted bill will be returned to the Prez.

3. If the Senate rejects the "approve the redraft" motion, the sponsor may file a second motion:  Whether to 1) send the original legislation back to the Prez or 2) resume debate on the original legislation, not the "redraft".  (which can be proposed as an amendment, if someone cares to).  If the sponsor at this time wishes to withdraw the legislation, he may.

It would need to be reworded, but this could essentially be amended by adding a little language to the Constitution allowing the President to "redraft" any legislation presented to him, which would then be sent back to the Senate for approval or rejection.

The rest could be dealt with in Senate rules.    I would have to work out the language.  And I know this is more pro-Senate than otherwise.

I don't really understand why the sponsor should be limited in his choices in this way. Why not allow him the options to motion approval, disapproval or continue debate immediately?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big deal would be requiring a Senate sponsor for any popularly approved legislation.  Similar to what I used to do in the old days.  No Senate sponsor, no dice.

Why the hard line? (This coming from someone who feels that sponsorship isn't even necessarily a necessary or good idea generally.)

[Јas]

Just a thought about this one:

People’s Referendum Amendment

...

When these requirements are met and verified by the Secretary of Forum Affairs, the Secretary shall organise a special referendum on the legislation on the next weekend falling no less than 4 days from the date on which he verified that the above requirements were met.

Isn't it possible for this to be literally impossible?  If the requirements are met on a Saturday, there is no next weekend falling no less the 4 days later.

Ah, I've amended it now. I believe the changing of 'no' to 'not' rectifies that, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Јas]

2nd Bill - I don't really understand why the sponsor should be limited in his choices in this way. Why not allow him the options to motion approval, disapproval or continue debate immediately?

Because this way gives the Senate body much more power over the bill than the sponsor - if you don't like sponsors, that's the way to go.  However, it does assure that the sponsor has one important power - withdrawing the legislation whenever he wants (not during votes obviously), which acts as a balance towards weird Presidential rewrites that may have Senate support, but not sponsor support. 

In my OSPR rewrite, I intend to work out this section, b/c sponsors should really have two powers - withdrawing his sponsored legislation and adding sponsors and they should impact each other.  No more.

Moreover, it harmonizes a Presidential veto procedurally (the sponsor has to file a motion to override or withdraw the legislation there too).  And it actually simplifies the whole process and eliminates loopholes.  For example, if the sponsor were to file a motion to reject (b) under your proposal and the rest of the Senate wanted to approve the bill, we would be forced to go back to debate again and approve again with amendments.  Or if the Senate wanted to remove the bill back into debate and the sponsor filed a motion to approve the "redraft", the Senate would have no power to return to debate.

In my creation, the Senate either votes to accept the Prez's redraft or not.  Then if the Senate chooses not to, it can choose to either send the Prez the original bill or return to the debate floor.  The sponsor can withdraw the legislation if he wants to before a decision has been.

Another issue that I hadn't thought of before is whether the President should have multiple redrafts of legislation.  Just FYI.

And there is no assurance in my mind that I would support my proposal.  I'm just merely presenting an alternative that I might support for your perusal.  Clear? 

I've made some changes to the proposal.
The first limits the President to one redraft per bill.
The second explicitly provides the sponsor with the option for withdrawal.
The third changes the resumed deabte option to that on the bill presented to the President originally.

I'm actually not sure that you'll approve at all, but then again you said you wouldn't necessarily approve a complete re-write to your suggestion anyway - so I'll stand by my position for another while (I still feel that your options are too limiting on the sponsor).
Either way, please do offer your thoughts.

You do raise a fair point in the example you raised, where the Senate would have no power to resume debate in those circumstances, but then the same applies where the sponsor withdraws the bill completely. I'll have to consider this further.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Three reasons:  1) Because of the power of withdrawal, which I believe any and all sponsors acting together should have; 2) Practically, we should all reserve rights to act as stewards of legislation and have the chance to get public acclaim for working with the Senate on popular-created legislation;  3) Just because legislation receives 15% of voters does not mean that it is worthy of a spot in the Senate debate.  People are elected Senators for a reason - to have privilege over the laws that are created and the laws that are passed.  Even though DWTL's stuff is crap, it deserves preference b/c he was duly elected.

In other words, the door should be open to the people, but Senators should be allowed to close it whenever we think it is in our best interests.  Might be a little anti-democratic, but I don't believe in pure democracies.

Not unreasonable points. You suggested though that certain modifications could alleviate your concerns. Care to elaborate?

[Јas]

People’s Referendum Amendment

Whensoever legislation is signed into law by the President, .... containing the Act as signed by the President

What if legislation becomes law thanks to presidential inaction, or is vetoed and overridden?

Fair point, I overlooked that. I'll amend the wording to try and accomodate these scenarios.

[Јas]

I have long been of the opinion that the budget is an unwarranted addition to Atlasian politics. Last November, I introduced a constitutional amendment to end the budgetary process which was eventually defeated by a minority of the people. Since then, no movement on passing a budget has been attempted. Though during the Presidential race certain candidates indicated their various wishes regarding the budget, nobody has shown any initiative to change anything.

A few days ago, the Senate voted to once again chose to effectively ignore the budget issue. The Budget thread has been open for some time now and no contributions, ideas or comments of any kind have been entered.

The Budget is a redundant process and I reccomend that it once again be put to the people that it is better removed rather than carry on a pretence that is is of relevance. I therefore ask any Senator who agrees with my position, to introduce the following amendment to the Senate for consideration.

End the Budget Amendment

That Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution be removed.

[Јas]

Presidential Term Limits Constitutional Amendment

That Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution shall be removed and subsequent clauses shall be renumbered accordingly.

Given that Ebowed is the only president that has served two terms, it would seem as though this is merely an attempt for him to run for the office again.

I'm fairly sure the clause doesn't prevent Ebowed from running for the Presidency again. The clause prevents being elected more than twice consecutively.

[Јas]

I think we need to address the issue of jury selection and juries, but I am asking someone else to help draft a bill

You an like the Jury Selection Act?

[Јas]

I actually find myself in agreement with DWTL over something here: The Judicial Term Limits Amendment needs to be amended such that the terms of the existing Justices would come up for reappointment in staggered, four-month intervals.

(As stated previously, I am supportive of this bill in general.)

You should feel free to contribute this to the actual thread on the amendment (and indeed to any of the matters currently before the Senate).

[Јas]

Thanks Ebowed for the heads-up.

[Јas]

Seeing some of the patently ridiculous legislation in the queu yet no jury reform bill makes me wonder.

Senator Al has re-introduced his Jury Reform Bill. It is now back inthe legislative queue.

I'm wondering whether or not the PPT should have new, expanded power to better manage the queue—perhaps a new slot open to legislation at the PPT's discretion?

Art. 7 of the OSPR allows the PPT and President of the Senate, when working in unison, to work around the normal Senate procedures with the particular aim of moving up particularly important pieces of legislation.

[Јas]

Science in the Classrooms Bill & Education Reform Bill of 2007 are withdrawn.

Noted, thanks

[Јas]

I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.

For my own 2 cents, the region failed in the Pacific because of 1 very influential voter (in this regard I'd note that 2 Pacificans changed their votes from Aye to Nay during polling).

Changing the amendment from Regional to District Senators may actually work but it would actually mean taking away from Regional Rights, as opposed to taking away from Governor's busy-work which has recently been lauded as a "regional right".

[Јas]

I'm not sure removing the Regional Senators instead of the District Senators would be considered as much of an affront by the Regions. After all, many who voted against the Amendment appear to have done so because of concerns about the level of democracy offered by an STV system. The Regional Senators, representing Regions of widely varying population, are in that sense much less democratic than the District Senators.

Moreover, as the Regional Senators are primarily concerned with federal affairs, none of us has the time to devote to Regional activity--and nor do we have any more constitutional powers than the average citizens of the Regions. However small the power to redistrict is, it is more power vested in the Regions than the Regional Senators have in relation to their Regions specifically.

I don't know, maybe removing the Regional Senators would meet with greater opposition. It's at least worth hearing what those opposed have to say, as I doubt every single Nay voter opposes the theory of STV over FPTP.

For my own 2 cents, the region failed in the Pacific because of 1 very influential voter (in this regard I'd note that 2 Pacificans changed their votes from Aye to Nay during polling).

Changing the amendment from Regional to District Senators may actually work but it would actually mean taking away from Regional Rights, as opposed to taking away from Governor's busy-work which has recently been lauded as a "regional right".

Oh, I'm not talking about the Pacific Hive Mind, I'm talking about the voters who actually had a reason for voting Nay.

Well, in analysing the Nay voters I think one needs to consider the Pacific and Rest of Atlasia separately.

Nay voters outside the Pacific:
PolNut; Inks; Masterjedi; Tik; SPC; BRTD; Sam Spade; DWPerry; TCash; Dave Hawk; RonPaul08

Of those, Inks and SPC were the most vocal in their opposition based on their declared belief that it was an attack on regional rights. (I say declared belief because I'm not certain they themselves believe their own official argument here.) Of the Nay voters above, I think DWPerry and RonPaul08 would be most suceptable to a campaign by Inks/SPC.
Masterjedi is usually an anti-reform vote generally.
PolNut believes PR to be unsuitable for Atlasia.
Sam and Dave Hawk have declared themselves in agreement with the viewpoint of Keystone Phil and despite my attempts at rebuttal, that seems to be a fundamental point of disagreement.
I have no explanations for Tik; BRTD; and most crucially (given that winning his vote would have won the day) TCash.


Pacific Nay voters:
TexasGurl; Jesus; Everett; Rob; BrandonW; Alcon; CultureKing

I believe that Jesus (either actively or passively) was very influential in this region. I think had he voted in favour, the amendment would have passed at least 5-3 here. It is in this region that switching to abolish regional senators may prove more supportive as Jesus may be more inclined to approve whence re-districting is not threatened.

FTR, I don't subscribe to the view that the Pacific has a hive mind mentality. The region is more politically homogenous than most others but it has a number of members more than willing to take a stand alone.

[Јas]

I missed the debate the first time around and I am still unclear as to what the End to District Amendments does (more specifically what "proportional representation" means in this case)  Could someone give a brief explanation of how senators would be elected?

The form of proportional representation which would be implemented would be STV.

The below quote (taken from this thread which may be of use) contains a number of useful links.

Those unfamiliar with STV may find benefit from the following links:

Wikipedia

• Single Transferable Vote
• History and Use of STV
• Counting STV

I'd also recommend the British Columbia Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform site. This contains a number of helpful guides, such as BC-STV Counting.

[Јas]

With five days passing on the amendment to allow for gun control, I asked that the vote be closed with an official tally of 0 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention.  Otherwise, a court case will be forthcoming

Your case would be immediately rejected, final votes can last for 7 days.

[Јas]

Old idea I introduced, I forget what happened to it but it didn't pass:

Fairness to the Voter Amendment II

Section 1:
1. To change Article V, Section 2, Part IV of the constitution from reading ...tenth day before the election to ... fifth day before the election

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=57507.45

[Јas]

Senate Resolution to Amend Article IX of the OSPR

Very happy to see this - it didn't occur to me that this problem arose until just the other day.

[Јas]

Anyway, has Xahar chosen a public defense attorney yet?  Obviously Peter can't represent both Xahar and Ben.  Is it Jas?

I have not been approached for the job; nor have I made an approach or expressed any interest for the role. I remain a Senator for some time yet and I have bills on the floor I'm still eager to progress.

And, ftr, if he wanted it, I see no reason why Peter couldn't do the job.

[Јas]

A reminder to senators: if you don't appoint a new AG by 11:59, December 31st, the current case fails.

Incorrect, per the judgment of Spade J on 22 December:
"Therefore, that is my first finding - the government has until January 1, 2009 at 11:59 PM to appoint/confirm/swear in a new Attorney General.  If this has not happened at that point or if it happens even one second after - the charges against benconstine will be dismissed."

Therefore we have 24 hours more than you have supposed.

Indeed. If Franzl doesn't get confirmed in time, it will be the Senate's fault.

Further, I'd suggest that if an AG is not in place it will certainly not be entirely the Senate's fault. It should be remembered that it took the President 4 days before a nomination was made. 4 days during which it is unclear just whether the President showed any activity towards finding a nominee, besides monitoring public opinion.

After careful examination of the Constitution and OSPR, I do seem to have found a "nuclear option" if necessary. Hopefully Lewis will be along in the next few hours and everything will be fine and dandy by tomorrow evening though.

I'd suggest you do have such authority...see here.

[Јas]

The problem was that Franzl was out of town and wasn't responding to PMs, not that the big P was monitoring public opinion.

It's entirely possible that the President has been active and concealing it well. You're obviously better informed as to the machinations of the 'big P' than I.

From this vantage though, the Franzl nomination seemed to be one were you led and the President followed.