L.C. 10.19 - Third Lincoln Constitution

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I highly suggest that you all choose a more creative name for the legislature than "Chamber of Deputies (CoD)".

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I actually quite like Chamber of Deputies, and not delegates to distinguish from the South.

That's still too similar.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

General Court is good.

Also bimonthly elections are fine. Nothing wrong with that. The 3-leg 4-gov system would become very annoying very quickly under presidentialism. Was bad enough before.

What would the term for General Court member be?

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

General Court is good.

Also bimonthly elections are fine. Nothing wrong with that. The 3-leg 4-gov system would become very annoying very quickly under presidentialism. Was bad enough before.

What would the term for General Court member be?

I meant title of the office. 

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

My suggestion would be to just make the constitution and government structure as simple as possible since that will allow Lincoln to be able to focus on having fair passionate fights over all sorts of ideological issues that this region has been known for years.

Either a 4 month governor term with 2 month legislative terms or having both at 3 months would work. I feel like 4 and 2 would be a better arrangement for Lincoln due to its history and culture being prone to wild shifts and the elections are what makes the history in a way the South and Fremont aren't  (since the South has always had a more conservative natural bent while Fremont is more consistently progressive dominated without much opposition). I feel like this spirit should be embraced as the core character of the region as I have written in detail about on the wiki page. https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Lincoln#History

As for legislature size, I think 5 and 7 is a standard that works fine.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

My suggestion would be to just make the constitution and government structure as simple as possible since that will allow Lincoln to be able to focus on having fair passionate fights over all sorts of ideological issues that this region has been known for years.

Either a 4 month governor term with 2 month legislative terms or having both at 3 months would work. I feel like 4 and 2 would be a better arrangement for Lincoln due to its history and culture being prone to wild shifts and the elections are what makes the history in a way the South and Fremont aren't  (since the South has always had a more conservative natural bent while Fremont is more consistently progressive dominated without much opposition). I feel like this spirit should be embraced as the core character of the region as I have written in detail about on the wiki page. https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Lincoln#History

As for legislature size, I think 5 and 7 is a standard that works fine.

2 months is way too frequent. 3 or 4 is fine.

House elections are every 2 months, and that works well in this game.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

My suggestion would be to just make the constitution and government structure as simple as possible since that will allow Lincoln to be able to focus on having fair passionate fights over all sorts of ideological issues that this region has been known for years.

Either a 4 month governor term with 2 month legislative terms or having both at 3 months would work. I feel like 4 and 2 would be a better arrangement for Lincoln due to its history and culture being prone to wild shifts and the elections are what makes the history in a way the South and Fremont aren't  (since the South has always had a more conservative natural bent while Fremont is more consistently progressive dominated without much opposition). I feel like this spirit should be embraced as the core character of the region as I have written in detail about on the wiki page. https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Lincoln#History

As for legislature size, I think 5 and 7 is a standard that works fine.

2 months is way too frequent. 3 or 4 is fine.

House elections are every 2 months, and that works well in this game.

I mean a majority of the chamber is opposed to 2 months, so just like I did on the gun issue, you should frankly move on, I don't know how to put it any nicer, but it is annoying to have people spamming "2 months" in this thread, when it was voted down. 3 seems like where we'll end up, and the current off-year system has worked well. Also longer terms allow for legislators to get more done in office, and that would be better than like 2 weeks out of an 8 week term spent campaigning, that is 25% of the time in office that legislators are forced to campaign and not able to focus on making lives better for their constituents. 25% of an office's term being spent mostly campaigning would be frankly absurd, and unlike the House we don't have the 2-3 week lame duck period.

Brother Jonathan and IBNU didn't vote on term length, so you don't even have a mandate to tell me to "move on."

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

My suggestion would be to just make the constitution and government structure as simple as possible since that will allow Lincoln to be able to focus on having fair passionate fights over all sorts of ideological issues that this region has been known for years.

Either a 4 month governor term with 2 month legislative terms or having both at 3 months would work. I feel like 4 and 2 would be a better arrangement for Lincoln due to its history and culture being prone to wild shifts and the elections are what makes the history in a way the South and Fremont aren't  (since the South has always had a more conservative natural bent while Fremont is more consistently progressive dominated without much opposition). I feel like this spirit should be embraced as the core character of the region as I have written in detail about on the wiki page. https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Lincoln#History

As for legislature size, I think 5 and 7 is a standard that works fine.

2 months is way too frequent. 3 or 4 is fine.

House elections are every 2 months, and that works well in this game.

I mean a majority of the chamber is opposed to 2 months, so just like I did on the gun issue, you should frankly move on, I don't know how to put it any nicer, but it is annoying to have people spamming "2 months" in this thread, when it was voted down. 3 seems like where we'll end up, and the current off-year system has worked well. Also longer terms allow for legislators to get more done in office, and that would be better than like 2 weeks out of an 8 week term spent campaigning, that is 25% of the time in office that legislators are forced to campaign and not able to focus on making lives better for their constituents. 25% of an office's term being spent mostly campaigning would be frankly absurd, and unlike the House we don't have the 2-3 week lame duck period.

Brother Jonathan and IBNU didn't vote on term length, so you don't even have a mandate to tell me to "move on."

Yeah, I think this only failed because of all the confusion with so many amendments proposed and that’s at least somewhat on the speaker.

Also who actually spends 2 weeks actually campaigning in this game except for presidential races and Senate races to the point where serving in the legislature becomes particularly time consuming? In fact I’d be surprised if more than a third of all Labor members who have ever sent a campaign PM while serving in the regional legislature unless they were a veteran player who returned to the low levels and was always involved in GOTV or something (I fall in this category).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have sent GOTV messages for myself in the past in almost every election I ran in, and I ran almost all of my GOTV back in July 2019, when I was a Fed. New players especially often post speeches as part of campaigning too, all of this can eat away time, also longer terms gives them time to learn in office, and hopefully grow as players.

It really makes no difference. People will be interested in the election side of things too if they're going to be an active new player who stays around in the game for a long time. Shorter terms help provide a shorter wait period for interested new players and it also makes it so that those who go inactive or only do the bare minimum in office can leave earlier.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I noticed a couple other things. One is that special elections don't have a required date to be held. That doesn't seem to be good since a Governor could just refuse to hold it if he doesn't want to. Another thing is that since gubernatorial races would be in April, August,  and December,  the current governor may not be up again until August, giving him a 5 month term which was more than what he was originally elected to.

I think a couple of clauses to sort this out will be good for the members to add in.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I noticed a couple other things. One is that special elections don't have a required date to be held. That doesn't seem to be good since a Governor could just refuse to hold it if he doesn't want to. Another thing is that since gubernatorial races would be in April, August,  and December,  the current governor may not be up again until August, giving him a 5 month term which was more than what he was originally elected to.

I think a couple of clauses to sort this out will be good for the members to add in.

Also, there isn't an election mechanism in case the Governor resigns.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I suppose that this remedy to my concerns makes the government too complicated. I think the guidelines of Article III Section 3 is an excellent and simple way to handle special elections. Also keeping a 4 month gubernatorial term in the long term ought to be the goal, so keeping the original language but adding in a clause mandating a one-time extra gubernatorial election to be held in say May or June would work out well.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Just apply the Senate vacancy mechanism to General Court and Gubernatorial vacancies. Then get rid of the early court elections thing added to Article IV. The other amendments proposed are ok.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Just apply the Senate vacancy mechanism to General Court and Gubernatorial vacancies. Then get rid of the early court elections thing added to Article IV. The other amendments proposed are ok.

The one thing I wanted added to the vacancy bit, actually, was that in order to reduce unnecessary elections, any specials which would otherwise be exactly the week before any general election should instead be delayed until that election (or cancelled, if the election is for a new term). Not sure if this should be added to the gubernatorial, Senate, and GC vacancy provisions each or if it's better to just add one all-encompassing prediction to do this.

That sounds reasonable.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This looks wonderful.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Article IV Section 1 is also deeply concerning because it allows for another LC 10.4 situation to occur. I highly suggest just simply tying the right to vote in Lincoln elections to federal requirements if the Council does not wish to allow lower requirements like the South does.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I'd like to avoid the issue of voting requirements in the constitution, that power should be left to the people's representatives. Paging Sestak for a special elections amendment.

"People's representatives " would just rig elections if they're told to do so by the party just like you tried to do with pushing LC 10.4. The new constitution should ensure that voting rights are not something that can be taken away on a whim. It is why a non-Labor majority was elected to work on this new constitution.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I'd like to avoid the issue of voting requirements in the constitution, that power should be left to the people's representatives. Paging Sestak for a special elections amendment.

"People's representatives " would just rig elections if they're told to do so by the party just like you tried to do with pushing LC 10.4. The new constitution should ensure that voting rights are not something that can be taken away on a whim. It is why a non-Labor majority was elected to work on this new constitution.

I'm breaking my sabbatical from commenting, because I'm totally lost here. People's representatives refers to the House, are you saying the House would rig elections? How is the House supposed to force the SOFE to rig elections? Also the circumstances around LC 10.4 were extraordinary as mass voters were bussed in from offsite, which has long universally been considered the worst thing that can be done in game and both sides have abstained from doing it for years, as a result. Such policies risk turning the games into giant arms races and you then have a game of 500 players, which is not manageable. I really don't understand your logic, honestly.

KaiserDave called them people's representatives,  whatever he thinks that means.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I'd like to avoid the issue of voting requirements in the constitution, that power should be left to the people's representatives. Paging Sestak for a special elections amendment.

"People's representatives " would just rig elections if they're told to do so by the party just like you tried to do with pushing LC 10.4. The new constitution should ensure that voting rights are not something that can be taken away on a whim. It is why a non-Labor majority was elected to work on this new constitution.

Am I inaccurate about this? lol

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I'd like to avoid the issue of voting requirements in the constitution, that power should be left to the people's representatives. Paging Sestak for a special elections amendment.

"People's representatives " would just rig elections if they're told to do so by the party just like you tried to do with pushing LC 10.4. The new constitution should ensure that voting rights are not something that can be taken away on a whim. It is why a non-Labor majority was elected to work on this new constitution.

I'm breaking my sabbatical from commenting, because I'm totally lost here. People's representatives refers to the House, are you saying the House would rig elections? How is the House supposed to force the SOFE to rig elections? Also the circumstances around LC 10.4 were extraordinary as mass voters were bussed in from offsite, which has long universally been considered the worst thing that can be done in game and both sides have abstained from doing it for years, as a result. Such policies risk turning the games into giant arms races and you then have a game of 500 players, which is not manageable. I really don't understand your logic, honestly.

Voting rights shouldn't be "managed" either. If you register as a citizen of Atlasia, you should be allowed to vote regardless of how many other total voters there are.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I think the easiest way to deal with IV.1 would be to explicitly state that residency requirements should be for residency within the region. I firmly believe that it is much less messy to allow regions themselves to combat strategic registration than it is for the federal government, since the latter has only limited constitutional powers with regards to this and thus become something akin to using an unwieldy bludgeon.

If the council wants, it could also perhaps explicitly state that the General Court can only restrict 'term of residency for voters moving from other regions'; that's also fine by me.

I don't see how it is any less messier to have a situation where say a voter moves from Virginia to Pennsylvania and that move is recognized by the federal government and this that voter is eligible to vote as a citizen of PA in the federal election but regional laws don't allow that voter to vote in the regional elections held concurrently.

I'd like to avoid the issue of voting requirements in the constitution, that power should be left to the people's representatives. Paging Sestak for a special elections amendment.

"People's representatives " would just rig elections if they're told to do so by the party just like you tried to do with pushing LC 10.4. The new constitution should ensure that voting rights are not something that can be taken away on a whim. It is why a non-Labor majority was elected to work on this new constitution.

Am I inaccurate about this? lol

I mean a non Labor council only came into power through a twist of events with Wulfric switching parties and Scott resigning from the senate so not exactly some super strong mandate or anything.






As for the issue at hand, I will say it is important to keep in mind that the new federal law likely to be passed soon will increase certain requirements and it seems unlikely the problem could ever get THAT bad in Lincoln that the council would have to further extend the requirements.

It's not like Labor complained about stealing a house majority in September 2020 since everything done was technically legal. If anything these safeguards to voting rights are extremely necessary to protect the integrity of the region and game from the power desires of the Labor Party.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Vote No, leave this to the legislature

A poison pill is still a poison pill even S019 isn’t doing it

How would it be a poison pill? If the amendment passes, the constitution will have full Federalist support at the ballot box.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Vote No, leave this to the legislature and legislatures of the future

A poison pill is still a poison pill even S019 isn’t doing it

This is the exact same language that Fremont has and we're the only region who never has any problems or arguments over voter eligibility! (Though we have far better wording)

Section 1. The right to vote in all elections and referendums called according to the provisions of this Constitution shall be exclusive to those persons being eligible to vote in elections for President of the Republic of Atlasia who have been registered to vote in one of the states or external territories of this Region, as defined by law, for a period of at least 72 hours prior to the commencement of the election.

Well the language isn’t the same then

But Frémont as usual knows what’s up

Fremont hasn't actually contested by other parties in many years. If it was, you'd see Truman passing legislation banning the opposition from voting so Labor continues to hold power. This is why Lincoln needs to have voting rights enshrined in the constitution, since it is clear that they are not safe with you.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Vote No, leave this to the legislature and legislatures of the future

A poison pill is still a poison pill even S019 isn’t doing it

This is the exact same language that Fremont has and we're the only region who never has any problems or arguments over voter eligibility! (Though we have far better wording)

Section 1. The right to vote in all elections and referendums called according to the provisions of this Constitution shall be exclusive to those persons being eligible to vote in elections for President of the Republic of Atlasia who have been registered to vote in one of the states or external territories of this Region, as defined by law, for a period of at least 72 hours prior to the commencement of the election.

Well the language isn’t the same then

But Frémont as usual knows what’s up

(accidentally deleted my post when trying to quote you). The greatest region strikes again! We don't tolerate confusing bullsh**t like LC 10.4. AGA's amendment removes the 72 hour requirement, accidentally making strategic registration easier. You lot just need to strike the last line, removing the power of the Court to make voting eligibility that unnecessarily conflicts with federal requirements.

I don't get the use of a 72 hour requirement if the federal one is a week.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I object, there are significant concerns that I have voiced that have not been met, and I do not plan on voting for this in its current form.

That's an insult to me!