Flexitime Amendment Tracker

[TomC]

Well, not that the vote is very exciting to track, but here it is:

Midwest - Passed- Voting Closed
Aye  6 (DanielX, SoS, Clay, Cheesewhiz, Yates, Jas)
Nay 1 (Lewis Trondheim)
Abstain 1 (Gustaf)

Southeast
Aye 9 (BrandonH, Ebowed, Cosmo Kramer, Dave Hawk, RonDubya, Q, BaconKing, htmldon, ian)
Nay 4 (Jake, Sam Spade, TCash, josh22)

Mideast- Passed- Voting closed
Aye 6 (Masterjedi, Emsworth, frodo, Virginian87, Afleitch, Al)
Nay 1 (jdb)

Northeast Passed- Voting Closed
Aye 6 (Jerusalemcar5, Ernest, Keystone Phil, EarlAW, MAS117, Winfield)
Nay 2 (BossTweed, FezzyFestoon)
Abstain 2 (Bullmoose88, ColinWixted)

Pacific Passed- Voting Closed
Aye 6 (Alcon, True Dem, Gabu, hugento, BrandonW, WMS)

[TomC]

I voted against it because while it is a good thing for the SoFA to have a little flexibility surrounding the opening time, I believe it is in the interests of voters to have a better sense of the times for the election ahead of time.

If (read: when) this passes I encourage the Senate to write a bill requiring the SoFA to notify voters when he intends to open the voting thread. I fully suspect Ernest will do this as he has been extremely communicative about what's going on; however, we can't always write laws that rely on future cabinet members to be as good as the ones in office when the law is written.

[Gabu]

Just because I'm bored:



Aye: 78.6%
Nay: 16.7%
Abstain: 4.8%

(note: percentages do not add up to 100% due to roundoff error)

[Democratic Hawk]

If (read: when) this passes I encourage the Senate to write a bill requiring the SoFA to notify voters when he intends to open the voting thread. I fully suspect Ernest will do this as he has been extremely communicative about what's going on; however, we can't always write laws that rely on future cabinet members to be as good as the ones in office when the law is written.

I'll take your suggestion on board and give it my priority . I'll draft a Bill to that effect and let you have a look at it before proceeding with it in the Senate

Dave 'Hawk'

[Peter]

I voted against it because while it is a good thing for the SoFA to have a little flexibility surrounding the opening time, I believe it is in the interests of voters to have a better sense of the times for the election ahead of time.

If (read: when) this passes I encourage the Senate to write a bill requiring the SoFA to notify voters when he intends to open the voting thread. I fully suspect Ernest will do this as he has been extremely communicative about what's going on; however, we can't always write laws that rely on future cabinet members to be as good as the ones in office when the law is written.

Then you have completely ignored the rebuttal of this argument that I made here.

It was always intended that the Amendment be backed up with supplementary legislation (hence the explicit commitment that the Senate could restrict and regulate the opening time), its just that using the Constitution to define every detail is not always wise.

[MasterJedi]

So now it's officially passed in the Mideast, Pacific and Midwest. One more region and it will pass though it'll pass in both the Northeast and Southeast.

[TomC]

I voted against it because while it is a good thing for the SoFA to have a little flexibility surrounding the opening time, I believe it is in the interests of voters to have a better sense of the times for the election ahead of time.

If (read: when) this passes I encourage the Senate to write a bill requiring the SoFA to notify voters when he intends to open the voting thread. I fully suspect Ernest will do this as he has been extremely communicative about what's going on; however, we can't always write laws that rely on future cabinet members to be as good as the ones in office when the law is written.

Then you have completely ignored the rebuttal of this argument that I made here.

It was always intended that the Amendment be backed up with supplementary legislation (hence the explicit commitment that the Senate could restrict and regulate the opening time), its just that using the Constitution to define every detail is not always wise.

I have not ignored it at all. There is no guarantee the supplementary legislation will pass. I understand that requiring the SoFA to announce ahead of time is not an issue that reaches the need for constitutional change, but without some sort of assurance that voters will know ahead of time when they can expect the booth to open I'm not crazy about a 24 hour window. Six hours or so and I would have been quite comfortable with it. I made the same argument over a month ago when the Southeast considered similar flexibility for its own elections:

While I don't mind allowing some flexibility on opening the voting booth, a 24 hour period seems like a bit much. Between 6 pm and 12 midnight seems better.

So, I would have supported it had the time frame been shorter or had this:

   3. The exact time at which a given election or vote shall begin may be determined by the voting booth administrator subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by Law.

been a little more specific about what restrictions might be made.

I agree with your intent, but I'm not in the habit of supporting a constitutional change that I will only approve of if subsequent legislation makes it acceptable to me. And if I cared that strongly about it, I would have made my dissent much earlier. As it is, my dissent has gotten the attention of a sitting senator who may propose the "restrictions" allowed by  clause 3. I didn't see anyone else planning to propose it, and your rebuttal seems to mention subsequent legislation as a hypothetical, not as overtly intended.

- for example we may require that the Secretary announces the time he intends to open the booth a day in advance, two days in advance or whatever periood in advance we like.

I thought I'd make a push to see that what is intended happens, as the amendment is clearly going to pass.

[Democratic Hawk]

If (read: when) this passes I encourage the Senate to write a bill requiring the SoFA to notify voters when he intends to open the voting thread. I fully suspect Ernest will do this as he has been extremely communicative about what's going on; however, we can't always write laws that rely on future cabinet members to be as good as the ones in office when the law is written.

I'll take your suggestion on board and give it my priority . I'll draft a Bill to that effect and let you have a look at it before proceeding with it in the Senate

Dave 'Hawk'

Cash ,

I've sent you a private message regarding the above. Let me know what you think ?

Dave