Distrcit Two Townhall, February 2006

[Peter]

Given that we have insufficient time for a proper debate with a moderator (the election being just two days away), I suggest that Supersoulty and I use this thread to field whatever questions might be posed by the citizens of our district.

Fire away gentlemen.

[TomC]

What needs to be done to ensure election integrity and confidence in our democracy?

[Joe Republic]

What, in your opinion, makes you more qualified for the role than your opponent?

[Peter]

Answering TCash:

I think if we are to ensure confidence in our democracy then we have to be in a situation where people feel that the result of an election is a fair reflection of the votes cast. To do this, people have to believe that no votes were unfairly disqualified - doing this is no easy task. We need to remove as many unnecessary technicalities as possible to ensure that voters aren't tripped up: This has already been partially accomplished with the repeal of the avatar laws, but also I feel that the Senate ought to proactively legislate to specify how certain votes ought to be counted.

For example, we have a situation where votes in Presidential elections that lack a Vice Presidential running mate explicitly stated won't be counted. This precedent seems to have been set by True Democrat, and re-affirmed by Ilikeverin last November. The Senate should use statute to overrule the precedent.

Another issue, strongly linked to the integrity of our electoral process, is it is so easy to influence the result in a close election with several candidates via tactical voting. A secret ballot has been proposed to try to stop this, but I am yet to be convinced that in so doing we will not either turn the post-electoral count into a marathon or leave too much power in the hands of one person to alter the result. Some have suggested changing the electoral system - I can see merit in this idea, but we must be wary of abandoning the inherent choice that comes from IRV.

Answering Joe:

Both Supersoulty and I are seasoned campaigners in Atlasia, so I doubt we can out-duke the other on the issue of experience, though I must say that regardless of whom the voters send, I think they will have an experienced Nyman operator who might at least be fit to lick their predecessors shoes.

What I am well known for here is the advances in forum affairs that I helped into Law. By no means did I do any of that on my own, but I have a track record in that regard of producing a result for progress. Given our need for reform that became so evident at the last Presidential, I think it makes sense to return me so that I can play the part that a Senator needs to play in these deliberations.

[Peter]

I've had a quick perusal of the legislation presently before the Senate:

Public Interest Amendment

I am in favour of the Gabu amendment to this, which should hardly be surprising since I originally wrote it 8 months ago. Without it, the Amendment is effectively useless, and would not be in a fit state to be in the Constitution.


Senate Resolution on Military Forces in Europe

I am the first to admit that I do not have much experience of military matters, so on this I would generally consult the Secretary of Defense and colleagues with knowledge of the subject and vote accordingly.

I seem to remember that John Ford recently mentioned that when he was Secretary of Defense that he withdrew some forces from Europe. I would certainly move to investigate that point before voting on the resolution.


Electoral System Reform Bill

The bill is well-intentioned, and certainly some electoral reform is presently needed, but in its present state the bill should not be passed in my opinion. I am opposed to the Texasgurl amendment. If elected, I will work with all colleagues to craft a bill that presents as few trap doors as possible for voters, and does its utmost to ensure that tactical voting is minimised.


Elimination of the Department of Commerce Bill

I am opposed to the bill as originally submitted for many of the reasons outlined in debate - the Commerce Dept is responsible for issuing patents and trademarks, as well as running the National Hurricane Centre. These are not things I would wish to abolish. I am in favour of the Jake amendment to abolish the Minority Business Development Agency.


The Elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Bill

I am opposed to the bill as originally submitted once again. The department does much that needs to be retained, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not an option. If I were a Senator, I would thoroughly investigate the CheeseWhiz amendment to scrap the Office of Public and Indian Housing before voting. Presently I am undecided on that amendment. On the Jake amendment to reduce funding for admin and personel by 10%, I would again investigate, and remain undecided.


National Sin Tax Bill

Whilst this has not yet come to the floor, Senator Al proposed this before his retirement. If elected I will continue to sponsor it as I feel it at the very least deserves debate before the Senate. I believe the Bill could do with some work, especially to more fully clarify the "legitimate" uses of alcohol that he wishes to exempt.

[minionofmidas]

Do you consider getting stone drunk a "legitimate" use of alcohol?

[Peter]

I certainly consider it a good use of alcohol, though in the case of the National Sin Tax Bill that Senator Al proposed, I don't think that the scope of "legitimate" was intended to cover drinking the stuff for recreation.