Northeast Assembly Thread

[Cincinnatus]

Winfields concerns are my biggest problem with this bill.  The fact that three people declared for Assembly last time, and seven seats were to be filled is a problem.  If there was competition during elections, I could see such an Act working.  However, this will likely leave seats open, declared candidates will automatically be elected, and the CJO will have to create special elections to fill the seats.  Again, this comes back to the need to reduce the Assembly size

[homelycooking]

At least if there are no declared candidates or no candidates declaring they will be write in candidates, if general write ins are allowed, as under current law, that office would be filled.

It may be that potential candidates do not declare because they know that if no one else does, there is no need to. If my bill passes, those candidates would be required to declare. I'm not convinced that being required to do this will stop candidates from seeking office.

The Assembly was designed to elect Representatives proportionally as opposed to through special elections. This law would exacerbate our problems by essentially guaranteeing that all declared candidates win, even if voters prefer a late entry write in.

I do not believe that "late-entry" should be allowed to encompass the days during which the election is being held.

[Lincoln Republican]

Nevertheless, no matter the spin put on this bill, it has a very major flaw, in that it could, potentially, leave an office or offices unfilled, as there is always the possibility that for a certain office or for certain offices, that no one will declare, therefore, leaving that office vacant, necessatating a special election, and special elections are something we want to avoid wherever possible.

And then the issue becomes, what if no one declares for the special election?  

Won't happen you say?  It is always a possibility, and this bill does not address this possibility.  

This bill simply falls short in addressing these issues, and, in my view, fails the democracy test.

Even in the real world, write ins are allowed.

[homelycooking]

Nevertheless, no matter the spin put on this bill, it has a very major flaw, in that it could, potentially, leave an office or offices unfilled, as there is always the possibility that for a certain office or for certain offices, that no one will declare, therefore, leaving that office vacant, necessatating a special election, and special elections are something we want to avoid wherever possible.

And then the issue becomes, what if no one declares for the special election?  

Won't happen you say?  It is always a possibility, and this bill does not address this possibility.  

This bill simply falls short in addressing these issues, and, in my view, fails the democracy test.

Even in the real world, write ins are allowed.

Write-ins are allowed in the real world, sure, but not before the write-in candidates submit the necessary paperwork, signatures, etc. to become official write-in candidates. A candidate who did not take this step in the real world would not be permitted to take office even if he recieved the majority of the votes. A majority of voters, voting for Mickey Mouse for president, will not elect Mickey Mouse because he did not (and cannot) declare his candidacy.

What is the "democracy test", in your view?

You make a valid point, however, about unfilled offices. Indeed, my bill doesn't address this, as you've said. If no one declares their candidacy for an office, then I believe that sends a signal to the regional government that that office should be consolidated or otherwise done away with. In the mean time, a special election should be held. That would give anyone who observed that that office was up for grabs the opportunity to declare their candidacy and win that position. If no one declares for the special election, hold another one or abolish the office. The answer to a government so big that no one wants to run for its myriad offices is not to lower the standards of democracy - it is to shrink that government by eliminating those unnecessary positions.

[homelycooking]

The time allotted for debate on this measure has expired. Members will vote aye or nay on the bill at question. This will be a 24 hour vote ending at midnight tomorrow.

[Free Palestine]

Nay

[homelycooking]

Aye

[tpfkaw]

Nay

[Rowan]

I don't think what homely said is true at all. In real life, you don't have to be a declared write-in in order to win an election. If more people write-in your name than vote for the declared candidates on the ballot, you win.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye

[homelycooking]

On the previous question the ayes are two; the nays are two. It will be up to acting Lt. Governor Winfield to break the tie.

[Napoleon]

On the previous question the ayes are two; the nays are two. It will be up to acting Lt. Governor Winfield to break the tie.

Can you guys recommend a Lt. Governor already? This should have been first priority. If I didn't know how Winfield would break the tie, I would threaten a lawsuit.

[Lincoln Republican]

Nay

[homelycooking]

On the previous question the ayes are two and the nays are three; the motion is not agreed to.

The House will now consider the next bill in the queue.

Natural Beauty Preservation Act

No billboard advertisements may be placed along roads, highways, freeways, or interstates in areas classified as rural.
Municipalities shall have the power to ban billboards within their jurisdiction.

Debate will last 48 hours, beginning now and lasting through to 9 AM Monday morning.

Members are also reminded that a recommendation for Lieutenant Governor is needed. Should any new business arise regarding the recommendation, feel free to discuss it during the debate if necessary.

[Elyski]

Well I'm back. Did I miss anything?

[tpfkaw]

Well I'm back. Did I miss anything?

Yes.

[Cincinnatus]

Well I'm back. Did I miss anything?

In the future, remember to make a leave of absence thread.  Currently we are debating the piece of legislation HC has posted.

Napoleon, could you please explain (I know you did once already) why I should support the first half?  I can support municipalities having the power to ban billboards, but why should I support an out-right ban for them in rural areas?

In regards to the Lt. Gov position;

I'd like to recommend someone, but it's clear our options outside of already elected officials are thin.  If it pleases the Assembly, I'd like to recommend Napoleon so that Winfield is free to appoint a Lt. Gov.   

[Free Palestine]

I propose the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems fairer and simpler to me, to simply give local governments the power to ban billboards.

[Cincinnatus]

I agree with the amendment made by Morgan.  I can't support an outright ban of such billboards, but I'm willing to give municipalities the ability to do so.

[homelycooking]

I would support a ban on all billboards in rural areas, but another problem that would arise would be the necessity of establishing a meaningful and effective definition of "rural". I can accept the amendment by FM.

Does Atlasia have an interstate commerce clause in its constitution? If so, such legislation as the one we're debating might be unconstitutional.

[Napoleon]

Its perfectly constitutional in America...

[Cincinnatus]

Its perfectly constitutional in America...

This is not America?..

[Napoleon]

Its perfectly constitutional in America...

This is not America?..

Come on. You're smarter than this.

[Cincinnatus]

Its perfectly constitutional in America...

This is not America?..

Come on. You're smarter than this.

I welcome your questioning of my intelligence outside of this thread, but let's avoid turning this into every other thread on the Atlasia boards. 

[Cincinnatus]

Back to the bill;

I will support the amendment made by FallenMorgan, but will not vote Aye on the current bill.