HB 28-15: Filling Congressional Vacancies Fairly Amendment (Failed) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 06:07:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  HB 28-15: Filling Congressional Vacancies Fairly Amendment (Failed) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: HB 28-15: Filling Congressional Vacancies Fairly Amendment (Failed)  (Read 1050 times)
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,294
Ukraine


« on: February 25, 2021, 02:59:33 AM »

hold on.

I really don't see what this does? I mean I see what it's attempting to do, but all it does is allow the Speaker to transfer the house seat to some {x}INO staunch ally of theirs - and they'd be able to do this far more easily than any group attempting to raid a party to take the chair.

Like to be clear, under this amendment, if a representative also happens to be the chair of his or her party, and then resigns and deregisters right afterwards, the Speaker gets to pick anyone from that party - a longtime member or someone who joined the party minutes earlier - and they get to do this even if the party has a clearly established Deputy Chair position or other line of succession which is perfectly intact. All this does is allow the majority to continually come swoop in and add extra seats to itself. The provision about being a party member at the time of the vacancy is also irrelevant, as the speaker's party could easily register duds ahead of time.

I understand that this is well-meaning, but it's incredibly poorly formulated. First of all, the amendment should not kick in if there is still an intact line of succession to take over the Chair position upon the resignation. And secondly, I am highly doubtful that it's a good idea for the Speaker to have any special say in the replacement of their colleagues - were it up to me, if there was no clear succession in the party leadership, then major party status would be considered forfeit and the seat would go to special election. That being said, I understand the arguments against the special election concept.

Again, clearly good intentions. But the execution raises too many problems. Thus I will be opposing this amendment as written and will vote against it should it come to the ballot box.
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,294
Ukraine


« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2021, 05:08:35 AM »

First of all, the scenario I proposed is a logical extreme for demonstrative purposes - more generally it's a bad idea and I think an unintentional one: if a party has a chair resign in the midst of a vacancy and there is a clear line of succession established, the next person in the line of succession, and not the Speaker, should have the right to appoint.

And secondly, you're underestimating the extent to which enterprising party leaders can very quickly figure out how to take advantage of a poorly constructed provision like this. When dealing with a constitutional amendment - especially one with a matter such as this - it's very important to be as careful as possible with the language.

That being said, one particular part of your post is so asinine that I feel a need to respond to it.

Rather, it is near certain the event would happen suddenly and at a time the speaker's party could not predict. So in order to "register duds ahead of time", the speaker would have to direct certain individual(s) to not just register with a non preferred party for a few days, but for an extended period of time of months or perhaps years, in hopes that the opposing Chair-Representative might possibly resign suddenly one day.
Yes. Given the size of this game this isn't difficult to do. In fact, both parties currently contain INOs who are relatively loyal to the other major party's leadership.
Quote
Beyond such problems as these shadow members not being able to vote in their preferred party's conventions or receive automatic endorsements, and the fact they'd need to spend months deflecting questions on discord about what exactly they're doing (making it unlikely active players would agree to such a long term scheme that would have no guarantee of even resulting in anything at its outset),
so we're supposed to rely on the Discord mob to uphold fair play here?  Ignoring the fact that this is the equivalent of relying on Robert Mugabe to prevent inflation, how...is this even relevant? The vast majority of registered voters in the game do not use Discord, or at the very least, not the Discord servers you are thinking of. I don't, and several other major active players don't. So why on earth does it matter what the hell Discord thinks?
Quote
It would also be highly likely that the Chair-Representative would put two and two together, realize what was being attempted, and ensure they did appoint a replacement after their eventual resignation and before their eventual deregistration.

People do emergency-deregistrations all the time. It's a sad thing, but it's not at all hyper-rare for either exigent RL circumstances or frustrations with the goings-on within the game to cause a member of it to resign from all their positions and deregister - and very often this is done without stopping to consider the consequences to their party, who will be their successor, etc. - after all, if you have pressing RL issues or are burned out on the game, why would you care?


All of this is essentially an excuse to be lazy here. There is no rush here, and it's a constitutional amendment we're dealing with. We can and should take the time to make sure it's done properly.
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,294
Ukraine


« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2021, 04:31:46 AM »

Pretty sure I know how this happened and some laborcord search-bar sleuthing has confirmed my suspicions. From the beginning the plan was to move the somewhat awkwardly placed major party definition into the Census Act from the FEA, hence its exclusion from FEA 2019.

The Census Act ended up taking a lot longer than the FEA since I was busier at the time (while I blitzed out the FEA in like a day or something), and somehow this bit got lost in the crossfire. There may have been an argument at some point about whether or not the definition should be changed and so that also caused me to punt on it. Ironically, the census act lists "organized party" in several points without defining it.

Anyway this can be fixed quickly by adding a single clause to §6 of the Census Act, which I encourage congress to do.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.