SR 114-25: Proxy Vote Resolution (Amendment Vote)

[West_Midlander]

A RESOLUTION
To allow proxy voting in the Senate under limited circumstances

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled;

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Proxy Vote Resolution.

Section 2. Proxy voting

Section 6 of the Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation (OSPR) is amended;

1.) Final Votes and veto overrides votes shall last for a maximum of 4 days (i.e. 96 hours). A final vote may be ended earlier than 96 hours:

a. If the vote has a majority to pass or fail, then the Presiding officer may call 24 hours for Senators to vote or change their votes.

b. If all Senators have voted and the result is unanimous for or against, then the Presiding Officer may end the vote immediately.

2.) If a bill has been vetoed, a Senator has 96 hours to motion for a veto override. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Senate is needed in order to override a veto.

3.) If a redraft is presented, the original sponsor shall have 96 hours after it is offered to accept the redraft or reject it and request an override. If the redraft is rejected by the Senate, the sponsor may then either motion to resume debate on the bill or withdraw the bill from the floor. If the original sponsor shall have left the chamber, the presiding officer shall allow for someone to assume sponsorship as with a normal bill, with the 96 hours commencing after it is completed.

4.) Veto Override and Redraft proceedings shall not be conducted in a slot and thus not subjected to any limits on the amount of legislation on the floor, but shall be conducted in their original threads.

5.) Proxy Votes shall be allowed under circumstances in which a senator has posted a Leave of Absence or similar message of absence and their support for an amendment or bill is impliedso long as the Senator designated to vote as a proxy makes a strong effort in good faith to accurately represent the position of the Senator who is absent under special circumstances such as those necessitating a Leave of Absence. The proxy-voting Senator shall also honor any clear statement or implication of the affected Senator's wish to vote a certain way otherwise the proxy vote shall be invalid.

I propose this amendment. I believe this is a bit less stringent because limiting the proxy voting to specifically bills which a Senator has had a chance to post a public position on is a bit too limiting for a LOA which may come upon Senators suddenly, preventing them from being able to post a public stance on most or all legislation before the Senate.

I believe the voters who elected a Senator should be represented if that senator has extraordinary circumstances requiring a LOA and if s/he chooses to designate a Senator to vote as a proxy in his/her absence. Without this amendment, the language of the proposed change to the Senate rules will likely prevent proxy voting in 80%-90% of cases, severely undermining the representation of constituents who elected a Senator who would likely show to vote often or in every case (typically) if not for unforeseen personal circumstances.

[West_Midlander]

Is there some outside example of proxy voting that you are pointing to which results in a Senator voting "twice" because in the only relevant example at this time, I have voted against my own position twice as a proxy thus far?

[West_Midlander]

Aye

Thank you for this vote, Senator.

I vote Aye.

[West_Midlander]

I have implied that my objection applies to all of the proxy votes, with the initial posts having taken place in the first threads I noticed with vote tallies.

Senator Pyro, I would not think that you can make a blanket statement against all proxy votes. Historically, I believe, motions have to be made one at a time to be recognized, in addition to following the time rules of the Senate, e.g., objections to an amendment being within 24 hours after the PPT or Deputy has opened the floor for objections. What you are supporting is akin to me saying, "I hereby object to all future Labor-sponsored bills which have a final vote motion presented" and expecting it to be honored.

[West_Midlander]

snip

Unfortunately, I suspect this issue runs far deeper than simply following labor leadership demands. Indeed, this whole operation may be something Pyro came up with on his own.

The rest of the Labor slate is much less active so it's a strong possibility, but we can't say for sure.

[West_Midlander]

I have implied that my objection applies to all of the proxy votes, with the initial posts having taken place in the first threads I noticed with vote tallies.

Senator Pyro, I would not think that you can make a blanket statement against all proxy votes. Historically, I believe, motions have to be made one at a time to be recognized, in addition to following the time rules of the Senate, e.g., objections to an amendment being within 24 hours after the PPT or Deputy has opened the floor for objections. What you are supporting is akin to me saying, "I hereby object to all future Labor-sponsored bills which have a final vote motion presented" and expecting it to be honored.

Fine, if you want me to post my objection in every thread, you got it.

At this point, it's doubtful that this position is being taken up out of sincere motivations instead of public pressure alone, since you have received that before changing course.

[West_Midlander]

Senator, your support for a conservative enforcement of the rules is undermined by your breaking of your own rules about motioning to table bills when there's no sponsor statement and waiting x amount of time (~ 4 days, I think you said) before motioning for a final vote.

[West_Midlander]

I object to Pyro's amendment. This seems like an effort to slow this resolution down which will require us to vote on the proxy vote on every bill if this matter cannot be settled quickly.

[West_Midlander]

By the way, I don't know what the final count will be on this but it's 85+% in favor so far regardless of whether you count the proxy vote or not. So I imagine each proxy vote will be able to pass by the required 2/3rds majority if this is not passed in a timely manner but it will be a great inconvenience to all Senators without any gain, especially since no one has an objection to the substance of any of my proxy votes for Senator Yankee and I have made it clear that such criticism on the basis of the Senator's policy positions is more than welcome.

[West_Midlander]

I object to Pyro's amendment. This seems like an effort to slow this resolution down which will require us to vote on the proxy vote on every bill if this matter cannot be settled quickly.

Do you object to something specific in my proposal? I adopted the concern noted previously by Deputy Wulfric regarding unilateral proxy voting, making sure that supporting evidence of some sort will be required as to avoid exploitation of the proxy vote method.

What exploitation are you talking of? Senators who are forced to take a LOA due to RL circumstances choose their own Senator to act as a proxy. Are you implying that the other party, in any case, should specifically benefit at the personal expense of a Senator in question?

Senators, also, are not going to choose people to vote as a proxy for them who they expect to vote against their stance or in bad faith.

The proposal is in fact concerning since it places an unrealistic burden on Senators who cast a proxy vote in exceptional circumstances. For one, the mechanism for searching this site is not very good, making finding one user's off-hand comment about some issue perhaps impossible to find. Secondly, a Senator's stance could be substantiated from a comment in a private online community, e.g., on Discord, in a situation in which a public stance is not easily found and in which the rules of certain communities may forbid what is effectively "leaking." This, furthermore, applies to communities on the right and left.

It also presents an unfair burden to Senators whose words may be published without their consent, in a way that could misrepresent them in a negative light, in general, which is not fair to the Senator chosen to vote as a proxy or for the unfortunately absent Senator. Everyone should be able to proofread comments that they will be judged on by the nature of those private comments being made public. This, ftr, is not meant to suggest a private vs. public stance in this hypothetical case since the vote itself is public, and the Senator, if present, would have voted that way.

This proposed requirement, meanwhile, only seems necessary if a member of a different party and/or of a far different ideology (i.e., political enemies) were voting as a proxy for a Senator, for example, if such a proxy was designated arbitrarily by the PPT, which would never come to pass.

[West_Midlander]

I object to Pyro's amendment. This seems like an effort to slow this resolution down which will require us to vote on the proxy vote on every bill if this matter cannot be settled quickly.

Do you object to something specific in my proposal? I adopted the concern noted previously by Deputy Wulfric regarding unilateral proxy voting, making sure that supporting evidence of some sort will be required as to avoid exploitation of the proxy vote method.

What exploitation are you talking of? Senators who are forced to take a LOA due to RL circumstances choose their own Senator to act as a proxy. Are you implying that the other party, in any case, should specifically benefit at the personal expense of a Senator in question?

Senators, also, are not going to choose people to vote as a proxy for them who they expect to vote against their stance or in bad faith.

I'm not sure that I understand. Allowing a member of the senator to act as a proxy-voter is a very serious act, with fairly obvious risks. My proposal is intended to circumvent these risks by ensuring that the proxy-voter shows some sort of evidence that the proxy vote matches the policies of the unavailable senator. Otherwise, yes, it is certainly possible that the proxy-voter could cast a vote that is not in-line with the unavailable senator's preference. I do not find it unreasonable to codify measures to prevent this from taking place.

In addition, if the situation were to call for it, the Senate could suspend the rules as noted in Article 10 of the Senate Rules, and allow a proxy vote that does not necessary meet these conditions.

So your solution is to force an additional vote in every case, on cloture, final votes, and amendment votes?

FTR, it is a very serious act. Please re-read my comments since I was editing until after you posted this (if you like).

[West_Midlander]

The proposal is in fact concerning since it places an unrealistic burden on Senators who cast a proxy vote in exceptional circumstances. For one, the mechanism for searching this site is not very good, making finding one user's off-hand comment about some issue perhaps impossible to find. Secondly, a Senator's stance could be substantiated from a comment in a private online community, e.g., on Discord, in a situation in which a public stance is not easily found and in which the rules of certain communities may forbid what is effectively "leaking." This, furthermore, applies to communities on the right and left.

This is a fair point. We could amend this to disallow comments from external communities like Discord.

The proposal, in general, presents an unfair burden on both parties involved especially since veteran users of the site are inherently punished* since the burden is then on the proxy-voter to comb through, in the case of Senator Yankee, up to 2100 pages of posts for a stance since the search function on this site is not that great. For example, quoting terms does not bring back the term but only the individual words in question.

*This is because it would be relatively much easier to find the stance, if available, for a new Senator with just over the minimum requirement of posts, or for any Senators with a few thousand posts only, in comparison to Senator Yankee, for example. Thus, veteran users are under an unfair and unreasonable burden of being disenfranchised when they must be away.

[West_Midlander]

This proposed requirement, meanwhile, only seems necessary if a member of a different party and/or of a far different ideology (i.e., political enemies) were voting as a proxy for a Senator, for example, if such a proxy was designated arbitrarily by the PPT, which would never come to pass.

I understand what you mean by this, but even political allies could make an error if the unavailable senator's position is not known or ambiguous. You can certainly make the point that Senator Yankee has been involved long enough that many of us know his positions on varying issues (though, still, I would rather proxy votes under this resolution document those positions), but if we're dealing with a new officeholder or forum user, I think it's a murkier situation. Plus, with the recent trend of party switching and such, I think it's safe to say party identification is not as solid as an identifier as it once was.

In my opinion, a brand new user is unlikelier to choose a proxy instead of resigning or simply going MIA instead, especially since they will likely have less close allies and/or know less about the possibility of taking a LOA/protocol in general. I also believe a Senator being represented by a proxy vote with a minimal chance of misrepresentation of their view, which a Senator can at least clear up when s/he returns is better than disenfranchising them to a significant or total extent.

If there were an oversight of the affected Senator's view on the part of the proxy-voter it would be an accidental one occurring very infrequently.

To your point about party, that is why I pointed to ideological similarities as well, and it would be a highly unusual circumstance, anyway, for a user to undergo a party and/or ideological shift just as another Senator (trusted by the proxy-voter) is forced to take a LOA.

[West_Midlander]

Senator Pyro, since your primary concern is about Senators' wishes being misrepresented, please note this part of my amendment (being voted on now):

"The proxy-voting Senator shall also honor any clear statement or implication of the affected Senator's wish to vote a certain way otherwise the proxy vote shall be invalid."

This would mean that if any Senator or the presiding officer uncovers public information contradicting the vote of the proxy-voter, then the vote will not be counted and the resulting overall vote will simply be as if the Senator in question was absent, which would perhaps be more common under your proposed amendment.

[West_Midlander]

The proposal is in fact concerning since it places an unrealistic burden on Senators who cast a proxy vote in exceptional circumstances. For one, the mechanism for searching this site is not very good, making finding one user's off-hand comment about some issue perhaps impossible to find. Secondly, a Senator's stance could be substantiated from a comment in a private online community, e.g., on Discord, in a situation in which a public stance is not easily found and in which the rules of certain communities may forbid what is effectively "leaking." This, furthermore, applies to communities on the right and left.

This is a fair point. We could amend this to disallow comments from external communities like Discord.

The proposal, in general, presents an unfair burden on both parties involved especially since veteran users of the site are inherently punished* since the burden is then on the proxy-voter to comb through, in the case of Senator Yankee, up to 2100 pages of posts for a stance since the search function on this site is not that great. For example, quoting terms does not bring back the term but only the individual words in question.

*This is because it would be relatively much easier to find the stance, if available, for a new Senator with just over the minimum requirement of posts, or for any Senators with a few thousand posts only, in comparison to Senator Yankee, for example. Thus, veteran users are under an unfair and unreasonable burden of being disenfranchised when they must be away.

I see your viewpoint, but I cannot agree with that. If a proxy-voter is confident in their understanding of the unavailable senator's position, it should not be too much to ask for some sort of evidence to support their claim. Whether it be a prior Atlas post, or a communication (with consent to be shared) noting that position, I think it's only fair to ask that proxy-voters show us what's behind their reasoning before casting their vote.

I also cannot speak to your concerns with the Search functionality, as I successfully manged to use it when tracking down and documenting the complete Lincoln Statute for the Public Library.

Senator Pyro, since your primary concern is about Senators' wishes being misrepresented, please note this part of my amendment (being voted on now):

"The proxy-voting Senator shall also honor any clear statement or implication of the affected Senator's wish to vote a certain way otherwise the proxy vote shall be invalid."

This would mean that if any Senator or the presiding officer uncovers public information contradicting the vote of the proxy-voter, then the vote will not be counted and the resulting overall vote will simply be as if the Senator in question was absent, which would perhaps be more common under your proposed amendment.

I'm glad this line was included in your amendment, however I'm reluctant to say it goes far enough in protecting the unavailable senator. It should not be the job of other senators, nor the PPT, to uncover a contradictory statement in the case of the proxy vote. That responsibility should fall squarely on the proxy-voter to explain themselves when they cast their vote.

Is it practical for a Senator who is forced to take a LOA to have to specifically give the proxy-voter individual statements which are OK'd to post if there is not a public statement readily available? I also don't think the process should be made unnecessarily difficult just because it favors one party at this time to do so, in a supposed effort to stem something which may rarely occur if at all (misrepresentation of a Senator's view by a proxy-voter).

[West_Midlander]

Senator Utah Neolib, the amendment would remedy the issue at hand, and I would support it if not for two concerns. I am not sure if it's a good idea to allow non-designated proxy voting since this would mean someone who is less aligned with the LOA Senator could vote in their stead. If a Senator is able to make a LOA post, I do not think it a significant hurdle to name a proxy-voter in that post. I am also concerned that 5b could potentially be abused if a corrupt PPT agreed to name a member of his/her party as the proxy and if the Senator could not come online in time to correct those votes, i.e., if a proxy of one party was named by the PPT/Deputy although the absent Senator might be of another party/ideology.

Also, the language should be clarified if the Senator in question can only correct their vote until the vote is closed because otherwise, retroactive vote changes would open a major can of worms.

[West_Midlander]

Is it practical for a Senator who is forced to take a LOA to have to specifically give the proxy-voter individual statements which are OK'd to post if there is not a public statement readily available? I also don't think the process should be made unnecessarily difficult just because it favors one party at this time to do so, in a supposed effort to stem something which may rarely occur if at all (misrepresentation of a Senator's view by a proxy-voter).

The process should be made as simple as possible, provided we ensure all proxy votes are cast with referential material directing the Senate to the position of the unavailable senator. It's extraordinarily important that if we codify proxy voting, we keep it as fair, secure, and accurate as possible. I will look into an alternative proposal to address this if my existing amendment is not acceptable to you.

If Senator Utah Neolib makes a few changes (potentially), I think his amendment could be a good compromise between our two amendments, especially since he is a non-Fed non-Lab.

[West_Midlander]

I believe we should get to a vote on this ASAP so I withdraw the proxy vote for Senator Yankee on this amendment vote (I have deleted the proxy vote post) as otherwise we may get stuck in an endless loop of objections over proxy votes until the matter is settled.

[West_Midlander]

I believe we should get to a vote on this ASAP so I withdraw the proxy vote for Senator Yankee on this amendment vote (I have deleted the proxy vote post) as otherwise we may get stuck in an endless loop of objections over proxy votes until the matter is settled.

It's probably just my opinion, but I think you should do so with all other proxy votes that you have cast to this point, given how unclear the Senate's rules are.

Nothing against Yankee, and I will be voting for this bill no matter what form it ends up in, but it's pretty clear the fight over the proxy votes is overshadowing other legislation.

The matter is before the Senate now and there seems to be a strong consensus for allowing it. There's no need to dishonor Yankee's legacy and to encourage and allow the tyranny of the minority by bending to the whims of one.

[West_Midlander]

I will also not cast any proxy votes in future votes stemming from a general objection to the practice to prevent an endless vote-objection loop from forming because I am interested in the business of governing.

[West_Midlander]

I am willing to support Utah Neolib's amendment so the Senate can get back to business.

[West_Midlander]

Senator Ninja, I think it might be a good idea to limit the objection to each proxy vote/LOA session (perhaps in the Senate Legislation Introduction Thread) otherwise obstructionist Senators, of any party, could object to every vote, forcing a "second vote" on every vote before this body.

[West_Midlander]

The intention of my amendment is only to allow the objection when the proxy voter is first designated. If the vote passes, no more objections are allowed.

Ah, I see. All good. Let's just merge your amendment and Utah Neolib's and go with that then.

[West_Midlander]

Proposing this:

A RESOLUTION
To allow proxy voting in the Senate under limited circumstances

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled;

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Proxy Vote Resolution.

Section 2. Proxy voting

Section 6 of the Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation (OSPR) is amended;

Quote
1.) Final Votes and veto overrides votes shall last for a maximum of 4 days (i.e. 96 hours). A final vote may be ended earlier than 96 hours:

a. If the vote has a majority to pass or fail, then the Presiding officer may call 24 hours for Senators to vote or change their votes.

b. If all Senators have voted and the result is unanimous for or against, then the Presiding Officer may end the vote immediately.

2.) If a bill has been vetoed, a Senator has 96 hours to motion for a veto override. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Senate is needed in order to override a veto.

3.) If a redraft is presented, the original sponsor shall have 96 hours after it is offered to accept the redraft or reject it and request an override. If the redraft is rejected by the Senate, the sponsor may then either motion to resume debate on the bill or withdraw the bill from the floor. If the original sponsor shall have left the chamber, the presiding officer shall allow for someone to assume sponsorship as with a normal bill, with the 96 hours commencing after it is completed.

4.) Veto Override and Redraft proceedings shall not be conducted in a slot and thus not subjected to any limits on the amount of legislation on the floor, but shall be conducted in their original threads.

5.) Proxy Votes shall be allowed under circumstances in which a senator has posted a Leave of Absence or similar message of absence and their support for an amendment or bill is implied.

5a. ) Proxy votes shall be allowed under circumstances in which a senator has posted a leave of absence designates a specific senator to cast votes for them.

5b. ) Proxy votes shall be allowed without a designated senator at the discretion of the presiding President pro tempore or deputy President pro tempore.

5c. ) Proxy votes cast by a designated senator can be changed in the following circumstances during the allotted voting time period;
 The leave-of-absence senator issuing a post disapproving of the vote by the designated senator.

5d. ) A sitting senator may object to the designation of a proxy voter. If an objection is made, the proxy voter and his or her subsequent proxy votes shall be recognized as valid with the assent of two-thirds of the senate.

[West_Midlander]

I object.