Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Brandon H]

While I am still undecided on the overall legislation, I do have a problem with one part and would like to hear ideas before introducing an amendment. My problem is in regards to vacancies in Section 18 & 19.

Here is the point I brought up when this was first introduced:

if the guy who resigns is your first place vote, then you should have more of a say in his replacement than the guy who voted him last place, but by having a special election, the guy who has him last has equal say as the guy who voted him first.

Here are a list of procedures for dealing with vacancies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_Single_Transferable_Vote#Vacancies

I am leaning towards the count-back method, but would appreciate hearing input from others.

[Brandon H]

If person who would fill the next vacancy leaves, then go down the line. Now if we run out of persons then we do have a problem. Perhaps let that party select a replacement. Of course if the person is an independent, there is another problem that can occur. Perhaps either encourage voters to include extra write-ins or have some persons run as a "replacement candidate" in the election. Just throwing some ideas around.

[Brandon H]

That could work. Right now for a write in one has until the end of the election to accept. Would we need some sort of time frame, such as 72 hours after a vacancy is declared?

[Brandon H]

Please do not consider the amendment introduced yet:

Sections 18 and 19 are replaced as

If a vacancy occurs then the "Countback" Method shall be used: the candidate whose seat has become vacant shall be removed from the ballot and the votes shall be recalculated.


Something else that may need to be addressed is (from the wikipedia article):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This addresses one issue but does not address the issue of independents. I then thought of perhaps allowing Independents and Single Member Parties the use of a replacement list but then that is open for abuse (person switching to indy just so they can use a replacement list). If we do that then I was thinking we should have a 30 day pre-election requirement.

This could become quite complicated.
---

The benefits of the proposal, to my mind, include the following:
More Competitive Elections; - Probably
More Voter Choice; - Yes
Possible Return of Regular Party Primaries; - Maybe. Parties would be encouraged to run multiple members, but a first choice, second choice might also be beneficial to the party.
Ends the Need for Re-Districting; - I like redistricting
Retains Regional Representation; - Yes
Fewer 'Wasted' Votes... Yes

---
May I also suggest that during this upcoming a election, a second thread be opened as a test vote using the current candidates, asking each citizen to vote using this method.

[Brandon H]

I'll introduce the amendment using countback for all vacancies. Independents will have to encourage like minded individuals to run as "secondary choices" just as parties will.
--
Sections 18 and 19 are replaced as

If a vacancy occurs then the "Countback" Method shall be used: the candidate whose seat has become vacant shall be removed from the ballot and the votes shall be recalculated.

And all following sections shall be renumbered appropriately.
--
Also, I would appreciate some feedback on my suggestion of running a test vote during this coming election.

[Brandon H]

Should the time frame be 72 hours, or is that too short of period? I think anything longer than a week would be too long.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Brandon H]

Let me state as of now (unless something similar to the previously failed amendment passes) this bill has my full opposition.

[Brandon H]

I still don't like there having to be another election, though if there are no other candidates, it would be necessary. It is an improvement over the current version, so I will sponsor this amendment.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Brandon H]

I would strongly urge those who broadly support the move to PR-STV to vote in favour of the amendment.

I'm sorry, but I dont support this "countback" method.

What would you support for vacancies? And please read the flaws with a by-election before suggesting that one.

[Brandon H]

Reread the flaws with a special election. It defeats the entire point of the STV method.

[Brandon H]

On the other hand, if enough Senators resign, a by-election for all the seats at once doesn't cause the same problems that a single IRV by-election would. A two-seat STV by-election would be far more palatable to those opposed to by-elections, I think.

I misread your post and it did give me an idea. You said "a by-election for all the seats". I realize now that you meant all vacant seats, but I would accept a by-election for all 5 of the STV seats. It would make it a little more complicated than necessary, but would keep things fair in the manner that a by-election for only the vacant seat would not.

[Brandon H]

I'm satisfied with Jas's amendment and will sponsor if needed.

[Brandon H]

I'm satisfied with Jas's amendment and will sponsor if needed.

Is this a legit "I sponsor"?  If so, we'll vote on this soon.

Yes.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Brandon H]

Here's a possible solution; take into account sitting Senators (does that make sense? I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how clear putting it like that is...)

Bump

As opposed to the senator being replaced, or taking into consideration who is and is no longer in the Senate vs. just the fact that there is a vacancy.
---
A by-election is just as undemocratic, if not more undemocratic than the other methods that have been discussed here.

[Brandon H]

Here's an example;

Five people are elected; two from party A, two from party B and one from party C.

Party C's Senator resigns his seat.

In the by-election, Party A and Party B's seats are taken into account during the count.

Party A's candidate polls 12 votes.
Party B's candidate polls 10 votes.
Party C's candidate polls 5 votes.

As Parties A and B already hold two seats, their votes are divided by three, while Party C (which would currently lack an incumbent Senator) would have its vote divided by one. So:

Party A: 4
Party B: 3
Party C: 5

Party C's candidate holds the seat.

Not perfect (far from it actually), but as a compromise?

Not perfect, but it would prevent the problem of persons whose first place choice is still in the senate of getting an equal say as those whose first choice was the one who resigned.

[Brandon H]

Nay for the reason that "major party" may not be constitutionally defined as 5 members in the near future. I offer the following instead (I did mention this to Jas in a PM.) (same thing, but changed major party and felt 4 would be a better number due to the declining population and smaller parties from when the Second Constitution was written):

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 party with 4 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.

[Brandon H]

I'll change to Aye, but still ask that my amendment be brought to the floor afterwards.

[Brandon H]

Aye