S-18.3-17: Southern Democracy Act (Vetoed)

[thumb21]

My reason for proposing this bill is that I don't believe that one individual should have the right to appoint members of this chamber, which is supposed to represent the Southern people. When 1 or 2 delegates are appointed, its not so much of an issue but the fact that 4/7 delegates were appointed really reveals the flaws of the system. This is not me saying I have a problem with the appointments the current governor has made. He has made several very good appointments. However, in future, we could have a bad governor who makes bad appointments. I believe that all delegates should be elected.

As for the idea of allowing party chairs nominate some people, I have the same issues with this that I do with allowing the governor to chose. Putting this power in the hands of one person is undemocratic. Furthermore, many party chairs aren't Southern. Political parties are also quite diverse and often have many dividing lines within them. The chair of a resigning delegate's party may have very different views than the resigning delegate. Also, what if the delegate is an independent? Finally, if a delegate is recalled, they have been disgraced. I don't think its right that the party chair of a disgraced delegate should be allowed to chose his/her replacement.

[thumb21]

I will however point out that clause 1 of this bill says that "a special election shall be held at least 5 days after" - this appears to leave open the door to the governor deciding never to hold a special election and just appointing someone to the seat for the rest of the entire term, or just leaving it vacant, so this bill actually effectively does nothing in its current form.

In any case, voting for this would potentially subject me to an immediate special election (it is unclear if it would be retroactive or not), so I will vote No.

You make a good point about clause one, I will amend that.

The bill doesn't apply retroactively. If you want, I can amend it to explicitly specify that.

this bill's mechanism for creating special elections for the whole chamber risks pandemonium.

The bill only creates special elections for delegates who leave office before the end of their term, not the whole chamber.

[thumb21]

An amendment to address Wulfric's concerns.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[thumb21]

I encourage my colleagues to consider what the composition of the Chamber would be like if 3/7 delegates each represented a different 12.5% of the population while the remaining 4/7 represented the same 50% of the population.

Or in a more extreme case, if all the delegates represented the same 50% of the population.

The concept of protecting the minority from a tyrannical majority becomes a sham if this is allowed to happen.

I appreciate your concerns on this, I agree with you that this isn't a perfect system but its a lot better than what we have as it stands right now.

We've already discussed a lot of this on discord but for the benefit of the other delegates and in order to form a more coherent argument, I'll post here more.

As far as I see it, you can correctly argue that delegates elected in a special election represent 50% of the population however in a system where a potential delegate is chosen by either a party official, the governor or even the outgoing delegate, the appointee only truly represents 2 people, the appointer and the appointee - 2.78% of the population. Having a delegate represent 50% of the population is still more proportional than a delegate who represents 2.78% of the population. This will lead to some distortion of the chamber in favour of the Federalists, most likely. However, its still better to have a delegate who is in that position by being elected by the Southern electorate rather than selected by one or two people in a position of power. Tyranny of a tiny minority is often a bigger issue than tyranny of the majority.

Some other proposals we've discussed include the proposal to have a special election but only with members of the same party as the departing delegate, however, this is constitutionally tricky, probably wouldn't pass anyway and will still elect delegates that represent 50% rather than 12.5%. The other proposal was having a snap election for all seats when a majority of seats become appointed, however this could be abused by parties seeking to take advantage of favourable conditions.

[thumb21]

Given how controversial this bill is, would the governor and the delegates be open to the idea of a referendum on this with a 60% threshold? This is a pretty important matter and I think a popular vote may be the best way to put the issue to rest.

Thoughts?

[thumb21]

Ok then, does anyone else have any possible compromises?

[thumb21]

Ok, we aren't getting anywhere on this. Motion to vote.

[thumb21]

Aye