Mideast Assembly Thread

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*Looks out through the window above my desk on the cows strolling the fields. Turns and looks out through the other window in my room, at the barn, the kennel, and the woods behind them.*

Strangely enough I don't feel like a city-dweller.

Anyway, I have finally made up my mind, after some lobbying from Badger's part.


  Aye


The Ayes have it. The bill is transmitted to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Looks like good legislation to me. The changes suggested by Badger seems to be very sensible as well. All three of us seem to be rather united on this one.

Since there has been no further debate on this bill for well over 24 hours, I'd really like us to move forward quite soon. I presume Badger intends to prupose an amendment, and will therefor allow him some extra time to do so though.

 

 



 

 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

If it's ok for BBF I wouldn't mind if we prosponed this bill to next week when you're back full time. This really isn't my area of expertise so I don't believe I'd personally be able to offer any good constructive amendments to it.

So I think it'd be better if we got your DUI out of the way this week (plus a small bill I'm planing to introduce) and then hit this current bill full power once your back. That way we'd be able to make sure this bill ends up being the best bill we could get, without the Assembly going into a coma for the whole week.

As this is BBF's bill though, I'll leave the decission to him. If he wants this done now, I promise to make sure we'll still end up with a great bill.


 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think he's going for the new penalties. Personally I think it'd be slightly odd to have the old fines for section three, after raising them in section one, but I definatley see that it can be interpeted either way as it is now written.

It should probably be amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I couldn't find much to object about as far as this bill is concrned. To me there isn't any good arguments in favour of letting someone who's been arested get out of taking necessary tests to prove (or potentionally disprove) that person's crime. I was actually quite surprised the first time Badger told me that an arrested person in this region could refuse to coropurate in this manner, as I consider it a matter of course for our police to have the right to make these basic tests on persons who're on good grounds suspected for comiting a crime.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

In that case,  intend to sign the bill.

Cool. In that case, as there appears to be unanimous support, unless there are any further questions, concerns, suggestions, amendments or debate, may I suggest Mr. Speaker we move this to a vote soon?

Unless there is no further debate I will be able to start a vote tomorrow around 3.00 pm. (9.00 am your time) When it has passed 24 hours since debating on the bill stopped.

But since we seem to be pretty much done on this subject I can probably introduce this:

Tie Vote Clerification Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

 The following clause shall be added to Section 2, Article III, of the Third Mideast Constitution.

7.   Should the Assembly split evenly on an issue, with one Assemblyman voting in favour of the presented legislation, one against, and one abstain, and thereby creating a tie, the Governor shall be given the power to vote to break that tie.


So the reason for this amendment is that before when I was reading up on our constitution, I couldn't find any clear rules of how exactly a tie in the Assembly is supposed to be broken. Since that could potentionally be a problem in the future, I'd really like there to be an amendment clearifying how such a situation should be dealt with.

Since we don't have a Lt Governor, I thought we might as well give the power to the Governor.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

I agree.  Although separation of powers really isn't at stake here.  Either the governor votes in favor of it, and signs it and it passes, or he doesn't vote for it, and it doesn't pass, and obviously it wouldn't have passed a veto override anyway.

Yep that was my thinking as well. It's really up to the Governor at that point anyway as he'll end up making a decission to weather he shall sign it or not, so he might as well be able to break the tie when he's at it anyway.

Although I see your concern HW. My plan B would be to have the people vote by referendum when the Assembly ends up in a tie. Although I think that would be to do a simple thing overly complicated.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to force someone to make up their mind, and have them vote either Aye or Nay. And to make it so that a proposal fails automaticly if there's a tie, will make an Abstain vote a Nay in everything but the name. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

25 % of all  the Regions registered members are not a small number. So it's not the most simple thing to get that many posters to sign a petention for it be put on a ballot. I know it was done whith the latest Abortion Statue, but besides that I haven't heard of someting ever getting enough support to be put up for a vote. 

My thinking on the referendum idea was that, well if the Assembly can't make up their mind, we should ask the people who they're representing what they think.

As I said though, I think that might be to make something as simple as a tie overly complicated, and would therefore prefer if we just allowed the Governor to break a tie.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I didn't think of that, but you are indeed correct that it could be troublesome, if it's abused in the manner which you described. In light of this I'll really have to reconsider if it's a good idea after all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two Ayes, two Nays, and one Abstain is as likely as one Aye, one Nay, and one Abstain. The Senate, with their ten members, far more often tie on an issue than we do in the Assembly. So I don't think the seize of the Assembly will have much effect.

I wouldn't be entierly opposed to growing the Assembly with one or two more seats, although I have my reservation. I believe that is an entierly different question though, which deserves it's own proposal and its own time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally I don't really see the need for a Lt. Governor. There was a reason we got rid of this office in the first place. The very few responsibilities that Lt. Governors usually have in other regions is here held by the Speaker. Thus the only function he'd have is to break ties, and although I think it's important we get clerification on how to handle ties, they still only happen as often as snow in Mississippi. So we'd have an entire political office, who'd just exist to break a tie once or twice a year.

Besides, if the Lt. is nominated by the Governor, he will most likely have the same oppinion on most issues as him. And even if they would disagree, the Governor would just veto the legislation if it passed, so the result would still be the same as if we simply gave the power to the Governor himself.

I'm open to hearing more arguments in favour of the Lt. Governorship though.

PS: Nice to see some lively debate taking place here again

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since there has been no  debate on this issue for 24 hours I call for a vote on this bill.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since there has been no  debate on this issue for 24 hours I call for a vote on this bill.

  Aye

The Ayes have it. The bill is transmitted to the Governor's office for his signature or veto.

 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I have been pondering the referendum idea, and I think Inks is right that it could be very easily abused, and since no one else seem to be that enthustiastic about it either, I think we should scratch that idea.

Since most peopel don't seem that happy about giving the Governor the power either, I believe that leaves us with the following opptions:

a) Give the power to break a tie to our Regional Senator, which was something I thought of yesterday that could work.

b) A tie means the proposal automaticly fails (this is how it is now)

c) We recreate the office of Lt. Governor.

As I've said, I'm not a huge fan of either b) or c)

We abolished the position of Lt. Governor for a reason. I would rather see it remain dead until there is a clear need and a much higher level of activity than we currently have. Creating more positions simply reduces competitive elections, which is really the point of the game.

 ^^^ This pretty well sums up my view on the Lt. Governor issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That problem does indeed happen in the Mideast too. Instead of a Lt Governor however, here most of the powers and duties of the Governorship are transferred to the Speaker. So incase Inks would leave for vaccation, I'd be in charge until his return.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Garrghhh!!!

I just wrote a long post, but my computer effed up and froze when I was working on the last paragraph, and it was lost. *Sigh*

Too tired to retype it again right now, so I hope you all forgive me if I wait until tomorrow before I try to comment on the new debate and the newly introduced legislation.

Sorry

 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I do not think the Governor should have the power to veto a bill the voters clearly approved in a referendum. But neither do I want to create a system that would allow future, more mischiveus aseemblymen to abuse it for their own political agenda.

That's why I dropped the referendum idea, because at a closer examination, it doesn't appear to be as good of an idea as I first thought.

Although I'd prefer there to be some tie-breaker in one form or another, it is not my main goal with this legislation. What I truely want is for the rules of how to deal with a tie to be more clearly distiguished in the constitution. Maybe it has to do with me not being a native English speaker (or maybe I'm just a bit slow ) but I had to re-read the constitution several times before I understod how the rules actually worked, and even then I didn't feel 100 % sure. So I'd be more than willing to compromise with the idea that a tie means the legislation fails, as long as we have an amendment  that more clearly states that this is in fact the rules for this kind of situation, in order to avoid future confusion.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Moving on...

Reinforcement of Rights Amendment to the Third Mideast Constitution

I. The clause 1. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"1.  No person shall be denied of Life without due process of Constitutional Law. No person shall be denied of Liberty or Property without due process of Law, Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of Law."

II. The words "private properties," are included after the word "houses," in the clause 11. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution.

III. The clause 13. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"13. Private property shall not be used for private use of other people without Constitutional Law allowing it. Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation set by Law."

IV. The clause 18. of Article V of the Third Mideast Constitution is amended to read:

"18. All persons under eighteen shall have the right to a publicly funded, well-balanced education. All persons under fourteen are required to receive education along lines and minimal requirements set by Law, in public or private institutions or in families."

Much of this amendment I like very much, while other parts I feel more uncertain about.

I'm against the death penalty and think it is a good idea to have it banned not only by common law, but also by the regional constitution.

I'm even more positive on strengthening our citizens' right to education. It is with knowlage and education we build a modern nation. (Hey that rhymes) That our people is well-educated is esential to the well being and prosperity for us as a country. Therefore I fully support this, and I wouldn't even mind to make fifteen or sixteen the youngest age of which you are legally allowed to drop out of school.   

Now to what I feel more doubtful about... You and me obviously have a slightly different view on certain elements of property right, as discovered during the whole Freedom to Roam debate. So I'm not certain if these paragraphs are something I can support.

I'd also like to say that I think it was probably a good idea to introduce this at the same time as the other amendment is being discussed, because if they pass around the same time, we will be able to have both laws up for referendum at the same time in stead on different occations

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Badger has 24 hours to either defend or withdraw his amendment if he wants to. I'll probably be able to open a vote on it before this week's over.


It seems I'm in the minority on the extended Assembly issue. I personally think it works well with three assemblymen, and I believe that increasing the number to almost the double of its current size would probably kill competive assembly elections.

If we take the next upcoming election for example, two candidates have declared, and asuming both me and Badger run for re-election, that makes us four. So in order for there to be any real competition we'd need at least two more, and at least one to be able to actually fill the assembly.

Now the assembly should work as a training ground for new members to stretch their wings and gather necessary knowlage in order for them to become mature and ready politicians. So I think it's fair that everybody should be given a chance to be a member, but one of the necessary things you need to learn is how to run a succesful campaign. If we remove the element of competition, the new members will not learn how to do that. If we have five seats, and only five candidates, you'd be able to just annouce your candidacy, show up and vote for yourself, and win a seat without having to do anything else.

I just fear that we would put ourselves in a situation were we'd have more seats than candidates. I'm therefore strongly leaning no on this issue.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This on the other hand is something I'm more than willing to support. I've often thought that two months is a too short time period to actually get much done, and that the time might be increased to three months instead.

I do disagree with you though that more seats will mean more candidates. There have been times when even getting three people to run has been quite hard in the assembly's history. So even if those seats were easy to obtain, there still weren't a lot of candidates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want to hear Badger's reply before I make up my mind completely, but I think you make a good argument as to why the registered office should remain as a criteria, so I think I will either vote nay, or abstain to the amendment. As I said I want to hear Badger's reply first before I make any final decissions. 
 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I call for a vote on this bill, as there has been no debate for 24 hours, and we all seem to agree on it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 ... as well as this bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although I'm not too fond (not that I'm overly opposed either) of the bill, there seem to be a strong support for this among the Mideast citizens, so I think the best we could do is send this to the voters streight away for their judgment. It needs to be done before November elections after all.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.  The Amendment contains both the old and new language (it says "three" and "five" as well as "unanimous" and "two-thirds").  Also, I would recommend that the pointless fraction of 2/3 not be used when we have 5 members.

Sorry about that. It has now been fixed.

4/5 would probably be a better way of expressing it, but 2/3 means the same thing technically, so I personally see no great need to change it.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

 
Aye on the Public Procurment Policy Bill.

Abstain on the Amendment.


  The Ayes have it on both proposlas. Inks, you know what to do

EDIT: I'd suggest we give the other two constitutional amendments priority so that they may be put on the same ballot as this amendment, if passed.





 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I know the question wasn't posed to me, but FWIW I would oppose any even number of legislators as it makes the liklihood of a tie vote go up dramatically.

Well...
*clears throat*
Then it would be a great time to bring back the Lt. Governor position. The Lt. Governor can break ties. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

Not really. Those who oppose the Lt. Gov position, do so because it's just another office to fill, and 4 Assemblymen + 1 Lt. Governor is as many as 5 Assemblymen.  

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are more than welcome to interupt Peter. And I had almost forgotten about this proposal, so it's just good you reminded me.

You make some very exellent points. It's easy to miss mistakes like these when a majority of the Assembly has a different native language than English.

I'd like to propose the following amendment to the pruposed amendment. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that is a better way to formulate it at least.

BTW I knew you could not stay away completely

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Are you trying to get rid of the death penalty?

Well techically he can't get rid of the death penalty because the Mideast don't have it. He's just trying to make sure it's in our constitution not just common law.


I still feel the same about the clause II and III. I support the rest of the amendment.


I have nothing further to add on Badger's proposal. Unless BBF has anything more he'd like to add I'd suggest we move forward with this bill. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since there has been no more debate, we'll vote on the following bill. 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

  Aye



The Ayes have it. The bill is transmitted to the Governor's desk for his signature or veto.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I wish you would reconsider splitting the bill. As you know I support the first and forth clauses, and would like to vote in support of them. However I will vote Nay on the amendment as currently written.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

EMERGENCY MEASURE TO AMEND THE MIDEAST ELECTION CONSOLIDATION STATUTE.

Effective immediately, the Mideast Election Consolidation Statute is hereby amended as follows:

Section 2: Determination of the Winner
1. If any candidate shall gain the greatest number of highest preference votes, then that candidate shall be declared the winner of the election. In Assembly elections, the candidate that receives a plurality of highest preference votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes and second preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first seat shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, and third preference and that has not already been elected to the first two seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes and fourth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first three seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly. The candidate for the Assembly that receives the greatest number of combined highest preference votes, second preference votes, third preference votes, fourth preference votes, and fifth preference votes and that has not already been elected to the first four seats votes shall be elected to the Assembly.


Thanks again to Senator Franzl for noting this oversight. We need to pass this amendment immediately for the forthcoming election.

Any comments or other things we've missed here?

Although I'd personally like to see a switch to STV system, the most important thing right now is that we have an electoral system that works next week, and then we can allow the next Assembly to work out details on electoral reform instead.

I'd therefore urge a quick passage of this bill. And unless Big Bad Fab objects, I'd like to move to a vote ASAP.