SENATE RESOLUTION: The Recall of Senators Amendment (Passed)

[windjammer]

I mean,
It appears I have to repeat myself but you cannot imagine how easily this kind of clause can be hijacked. "Hell is paved with good intentions".

I invaded once a region, transformed it from the most socon one to a labor stronghold by flipping the IRL DINOs by running on a socially moderate platform and by moving voters en masse to this.

If I were playing this game with that clause, Griffin and I would have easily targeted senators by moving voters en masse and then started a recall.

And I don't understand the reasoning behind this, inactive senators get expulsed by the senate. What the point of passing that?

[windjammer]

I mean,
It appears I have to repeat myself but you cannot imagine how easily this kind of clause can be hijacked. "Hell is paved with good intentions".

I invaded once a region, transformed it from the most socon one to a labor stronghold by flipping the IRL DINOs by running on a socially moderate platform and by moving voters en masse to this.

If I were playing this game with that clause, Griffin and I would have easily targeted senators by moving voters en masse and then started a recall.

And I don't understand the reasoning behind this, inactive senators get expulsed by the senate. What the point of passing that?

Well, there are some safeguards to try and prevent abuse in the ammendment.

As for the point of this, it's basically to prevent an scenario where the Senate protects a bad/inactive senator on purpose, or someonw who always just barely escapes the rules. It's not hard to imagine say, a senator who mostly trolls and rarely posts, yet it's protected for partisan reasons.

In that scenario the people of the region would be able to recall said senator.

Well,
When was the last time a "senator who mostly trolls and rarely posts" was protected for partisan reasons?

[windjammer]

I mean,
It appears I have to repeat myself but you cannot imagine how easily this kind of clause can be hijacked. "Hell is paved with good intentions".

I invaded once a region, transformed it from the most socon one to a labor stronghold by flipping the IRL DINOs by running on a socially moderate platform and by moving voters en masse to this.

If I were playing this game with that clause, Griffin and I would have easily targeted senators by moving voters en masse and then started a recall.

And I don't understand the reasoning behind this, inactive senators get expulsed by the senate. What the point of passing that?

Well, there are some safeguards to try and prevent abuse in the ammendment.

As for the point of this, it's basically to prevent an scenario where the Senate protects a bad/inactive senator on purpose, or someonw who always just barely escapes the rules. It's not hard to imagine say, a senator who mostly trolls and rarely posts, yet it's protected for partisan reasons.

In that scenario the people of the region would be able to recall said senator.

Well,
When was the last time a "senator who mostly trolls and rarely posts" was protected for partisan reasons?

I'll admit it's an unlikely possibility but a possibility nontheless.

Still I also don't get the abuse argument considering that regional recalls have never been abused either. And the thresholds for recalling a legislator or a governor are lower than this proposed ammendment. Should we really hold Senators to a higher standard?

So as you admit yourself it's an unlikely possibility, why bothering creating something new that will solve no problems (as they don't exist)? Lechasseur was recalled twice for example, unanimously.


As for the recall in the local offices, well the main it's not abused it's simply because most people don't pay enough attention to this kind of elections. It often happens that parties struggle to recruit candidates. The senate matters much more, as your election demonstrated it. You losing or winning was the outcome deciding whether the feds would have got their legislative majority or not. A senate election matters much more than a local election.

There is a clear risk of abuse with this clause. If I were playing right now, again, I would have used it to oust senators by moving voters en masse in the region, and then started a recall election because "inactivity" or an another reason.

[windjammer]

I would also point out that Rimjob took advantage of a pro-regional reform pushed by Maroduke, which regionalized the manner of administering regional amendment ratification, thus allowing them to opt for regional legislative approval.

There will also be hostile elements, seeking to cheat the system.

Strategic Registration has at various points crippled this game, typically via the Pacific by pulling out dissident residents to supply the numbers to go after another region. Most every example of such, has almost always involved pulling people from the West and this is one of many factors as to why the Pacific and subsequently Fremont has always struggled, since they are frequently the ones being strip mined.

If such were to be attempted again, on the scale Windjammer describes, I would aggressively push for harsh criminal penalties for the ring leaders and move restrictions.

Except that this is not a crime to recall a senator.

Seriously Yankee I suspect that you will vote for it but REMEMBER WHAT I DID TO THE MIDEAST. Imagine what could be done with this amendment.

[windjammer]

I would also point out that Rimjob took advantage of a pro-regional reform pushed by Maroduke, which regionalized the manner of administering regional amendment ratification, thus allowing them to opt for regional legislative approval.

There will also be hostile elements, seeking to cheat the system.

Strategic Registration has at various points crippled this game, typically via the Pacific by pulling out dissident residents to supply the numbers to go after another region. Most every example of such, has almost always involved pulling people from the West and this is one of many factors as to why the Pacific and subsequently Fremont has always struggled, since they are frequently the ones being strip mined.

If such were to be attempted again, on the scale Windjammer describes, I would aggressively push for harsh criminal penalties for the ring leaders and move restrictions.

Except that this is not a crime to recall a senator.

Seriously Yankee I suspect that you will vote for it but REMEMBER WHAT I DID TO THE MIDEAST. Imagine what could be done with this amendment.

The crime in this case would be orchestrating a mass strategic registration effort.

We both know it's Never going to be a "crime".

[windjammer]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

I mean,
I explained why this bill was bad because it would lead to this clause amendment being hijacked by unscrupulous people wanting to maximise the power of their party. I'm an expert on this subject, I invaded the most socially rightwing region and I turned it into a labor stronghold though new registrations.

And I can assure you with this kind of amendment I would have used to maximise even more partisan registration and target senators just for that reason that I would find vulnerable.

I don't see even the point of passing that. The senate expels its inactive senators, why passing that? It's about resolving a problem that doesn't exist.

Passing this kind of legislation is going to create problems beyond your imagination and some new Griffin, new AdamGriffin would easily use that.

[windjammer]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Actually, the problem here is that we have two Laborites making different arguments, and we are basically going to have to chose between which one to listen to. Truman or Windjammer.

While game reform should be one of the least partisan kinds of bills, since both Truman and Windjammer are Laborites, does the other side of the aisle have an opinion on the issue?

Though I assume you are wishing for the opines of someone other than myself I will say that I expect the vast majority of Federalists are in strong support of this amendment, as it is a key example of regional rights and the devolution of powers from the federal government to the regions.
In addition, we have always taken the harder and clearer line on activity and recall.

So all of this drama is because you want to show how pro activity you are?