SENATE BILL: 5th Amendment to the Proportional Representation Act (law'd)

[bgwah]

Look at the law I cited. It says the runner-up becomes Senator.

[bgwah]

Well that's a completely different law. It has nothing to do with what I've proposed. I'm just pointing it out since Shua brought it up.

[bgwah]

And here yet another amendment I'm proposing... (changes in bold)

I hope some of the people opposed to the amendment we just passed will find this more compromising. The replacements must now be chosen after a party-wide vote, with the chair merely being the person who informs the government of the party's decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

Since I'm the sponsor, the below amendments are friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

That's kind of a vague post. Neither of the amendments actually changes whether or not the party appoints the replacement, so I would assume you're not objecting... However, I'll wait for you to clarify just to be certain.

[bgwah]

They are two separate amendments, the first having been proposed here

[bgwah]

That's kind of a vague post. Neither of the amendments actually changes whether or not the party appoints the replacement, so I would assume you're not objecting... However, I'll wait for you to clarify just to be certain.

Both of the amendments have passed as friendly, then.

[bgwah]

I am bringing this bill to a final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[bgwah]

I like to give parties more things to do.

[bgwah]

This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[bgwah]

This has passed 6-3.  It is now presented to the President for his signature.

[bgwah]

VETO




....I accidentally signed this as I've had weird internet issues, and it crashed before I had completed it.

I made it clear that I would only support a party-appointment/election process when there were set time frames.

I incorporated as many of your ideas as I could---some were unconstitutional (such as appointments for vacancies within the first week of term). There are set time frames as far as the constitution allows. I don't understand your veto, as I told you this in our PMs.

[bgwah]

I only support the party vote/appointment process should it be stupid to try another vote.

I don't believe it is unconstitutional to place time restrictions.

I accept this will likely be overridden - which I accept, but I wanted to have my position made clear.

The Parties should only have a say in replacements within a small period at the beginning and end of the terms - otherwise it should be a special election.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Third_Constitution#Section_4:_Elections_to_the_Senate

If a vacancy shall occur in a Class B Senate seat more than twenty-one days before the regularly scheduled election for that seat, then a special election shall be called to fill the remainder of the vacated term within one week of the vacancy occurring; Special elections to the Senate shall begin within ten days of the vacancy occurring and shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Thursday and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning.

The Constitution makes it clear when special elections must occur. My bill made sure to only have appointments be possible at the end of a term when it is too late for a special election, and if a seat is conceded before the term actually starts.

I incorporated as much as you wanted that I could while still being constitutional. I urge you to reconsider signing this bill.

[bgwah]

I would be happy to answer any further questions you have, of course.