Vice-Presidential Election Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't much like the idea of abolishing the Vice Presidency,

Why not? It's an unnecessary office that serves little function. What's it's justification?

Well first of all, it does serve a government purpose. The VP is essentially a back-up for two positions, the PPT and the Presidency. If you eliminate the Vice Presidency, you have to re-write Senate rules for who takes charge during new sessions, or PPT vacancies in general, and if the President is removed from office or is inactive for a certain period of time, you would either be without a President (as seems to be the case in your proposal on both counts) or would just have to find someone else to replace him.

But neither back-up is necessary.

The proposal I've put forward allows for the election of a new President within a relatively short period of time - and provides an interim executive until that election is certified. Atlasia would not be without an executive.

Whether or not the back-up is 'necessary' ultimately comes down to your personal opinion on the matter. Just because something can be done through alternative means doesn't inherently mean the status quo is flawed and in need of changing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why such things need to be changed, though. It would seem to me to be unnecessarily complicated of a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, or if it does exist, is almost unnoticeable. Removing one position and filling that void with a patchwork of a variety of different responsibilities delegated to different people seems pointless if the current position works fine and simply requires an additional body.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how they improve the electoral aspect of the game - but that's plainly a matter of personal opinion, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.[/quote]

It's quite measurable. Vice Presidents balance out tickets or unite parties behind one banner. Look at the last election. Lief, solid left-wing firebrand with supportive rhetoric to socialist ideas, chooses likable and largely uncontroversial and moderate Bacon King to be his running mate to soften the ticket. PiT, extreme libertarian with the stated real life goal of "abolishing" the government, chooses likable and protectionist moderate HappyWarrior, to broaden appeal. Also, minor as it might seem to some, there is always excitement over running-mate announcements during the campaigns.

Removing the Vice Presidency essentially makes the system of electing a president devolve into a "who is cutest" High School class-President style system where people like BK or HW (no offense to them) are almost always elected, or that there are so many people on the ballot that the preferencing approaches almost completely convoluted levels.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My contention is simply that it's a waste of a potentially useful Atlasian - who is being applied as a Constitutional band-aid to fulfill very occasional duties that could just as easily and efficiently be carried out by alternative means.[/quote]

My contention is that there is no serious problem. Perhaps in the days of stagnation of membership and shortage of able-bodied Atlasians might this be an issue, but we're not exactly short of people right now, and there seems to be no real problem in need of such a fix here, to essentially turn the entire history of Atlasian elections upside down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again why not?
[/quote]

The Senate is a finicky body, and it's positions are easy to win over through certain electoral tactics. A tie in the Senate is not necessarily representative of the general public's opinion on a piece of legislation. We have the VP to cast tie-breaking votes during these instances to act as a further representative of the people when necessary.

It would seem to me to be grossly unfair to let a potentially important bill fail simply because it came to a deadlock. Many important (and sometimes unfortunate, but still infamous) things have passed in the United States through the use of a tie-breaking vote, it's an important tool that should be reserved for when needed.
[/quote]

As I've said before, the deadlock fail proposal is a suggestion. In many parliamentary assemblies tied votes lead to the measure failing. I'm not to suggest that any of them are less democratic for not at that point calling on a fairly random other official to break the deadlock. Anyway, as I've stated before I'm open to reasonable amendments.[/quote]

Respectfully, we aren't one. So this point is moot.

As for your last point, it's not just about tie-breaking, though I'm disappointed you seemed to dismiss what I considered to be my most concise point.

The obvious solution to the ties problem is to increase the size of the Senate to 11 seats. And give the PPT the casting vote (ie; in the event of a tie, his vote would count twice. This happens in local government organising votes in England and Wales, fwiw). Problem solved.

This is ultimately a solution to a problem that is caused by a solution to another problem that no one has adequately proven exists. Why jump through hoops for no reason?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is ultimately a solution to a problem that is caused by a solution to another problem that no one has adequately proven exists. Why jump through hoops for no reason?

There are some good reasons for abolishing the Vice President actually - most importantly (to my way of looking at things) the office is a constitutional anomaly. While clearly (and elected as) a member of the Executive, the Vice President's power (such as it is) is exercised in the Legislature. There isn't really a reason for this other than "we've always done things this way".

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is ultimately a solution to a problem that is caused by a solution to another problem that no one has adequately proven exists. Why jump through hoops for no reason?

There are some good reasons for abolishing the Vice President actually - most importantly (to my way of looking at things) the office is a constitutional anomaly. While clearly (and elected as) a member of the Executive, the Vice President's power (such as it is) is exercised in the Legislature. There isn't really a reason for this other than "we've always done things this way".

Such a thing is no more anomalous than the judiciary overriding legislative or executive decisions, the President interfering in the Senate's will by vetoing bills, or the Senate overriding executive decisions such as vetoes. Such interaction and power exercised over and between the branches is common practice.

With respect, perhaps the often attempted efforts to transform Atlasia into a parliamentary system should be taken up in separate amendments.

[afleitch]

This is ultimately a solution to a problem that is caused by a solution to another problem that no one has adequately proven exists. Why jump through hoops for no reason?

There are some good reasons for abolishing the Vice President actually - most importantly (to my way of looking at things) the office is a constitutional anomaly. While clearly (and elected as) a member of the Executive, the Vice President's power (such as it is) is exercised in the Legislature. There isn't really a reason for this other than "we've always done things this way".

Such a thing is no more anomalous than the judiciary overriding legislative or executive decisions, the President interfering in the Senate's will by vetoing bills, or the Senate overriding executive decisions such as vetoes. Such interaction and power exercised over and between the branches is common practice.

With respect, perhaps the often attempted efforts to transform Atlasia into a parliamentary system should be taken up in separate amendments.

Would you be open to re-defining the role of the VP as a head of government? It makes the pick more important as they will have an effective 'Prime Ministerial' role, while still allowing the President to exercise his usual authority. I'm thinking France here, except with the opportunity for the President to take his nominee for head of govt 'with him' through a joint ticket. Also it wouldn't change the veeps current relationship with the Senate.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is ultimately a solution to a problem that is caused by a solution to another problem that no one has adequately proven exists. Why jump through hoops for no reason?

There are some good reasons for abolishing the Vice President actually - most importantly (to my way of looking at things) the office is a constitutional anomaly. While clearly (and elected as) a member of the Executive, the Vice President's power (such as it is) is exercised in the Legislature. There isn't really a reason for this other than "we've always done things this way".

Such a thing is no more anomalous than the judiciary overriding legislative or executive decisions, the President interfering in the Senate's will by vetoing bills, or the Senate overriding executive decisions such as vetoes. Such interaction and power exercised over and between the branches is common practice.

With respect, perhaps the often attempted efforts to transform Atlasia into a parliamentary system should be taken up in separate amendments.

Would you be open to re-defining the role of the VP as a head of government? It makes the pick more important as they will have an effective 'Prime Ministerial' role, while still allowing the President to exercise his usual authority. I'm thinking France here, except with the opportunity for the President to take his nominee for head of govt 'with him' through a joint ticket. Also it wouldn't change the veeps current relationship with the Senate.

The first thing that flies to the top of my mind is "change for the sake of change" I'm afraid. Problems should be fixed, problems that don't exist shouldn't be.

What about our current system of government, aside from regional Senate seats, are so messed up that they requiring fixing and in need of entertaining the possibility of a parliamentary style?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Such a thing is no more anomalous than the judiciary overriding legislative or executive decisions, the President interfering in the Senate's will by vetoing bills, or the Senate overriding executive decisions such as vetoes. Such interaction and power exercised over and between the branches is common practice.

These things are all examples of interaction between different branches of government, yes. Especially in the case of the Judicary - their primary responsibility (and power) is to interpret the law in light of the constitution. But a member of the Executive acting as the (or rather "a") Presiding Officer of the Legislature?

[Fritz]

I agree with just about everything Marokai has said.  I am not in favor of abolishing the office, I simply want to make the election more democratic and interesting.  Instead of abolishing the office, I would like to expand its powers by eliminating the office of the PPT.  This would change the office into an extremely important one- elected by the people, not just by the Senate.  I may propose an amendment as such, after Jas's amendment (hopefully) fails.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I agree with just about everything Marokai has said.  I am not in favor of abolishing the office, I simply want to make the election more democratic and interesting.  Instead of abolishing the office, I would like to expand its powers by eliminating the office of the PPT.  This would change the office into an extremely important one- elected by the people, not just by the Senate.  I may propose an amendment as such, after Jas's amendment (hopefully) fails.

Well, I oppose that too I'm afraid

Not really because I am the PPT, but simply because the VP's role is one of substitution. We eliminate the PPT position and give it's responsibilities to the VP, what, then, if the President goes absent? The VP now runs the Senate and is President? This could result in some fairly serious conflicts (not to mention a heavy workload).

The best thing, but probably not the most popular for those here, is not really changing anything I'm afraid.

[Јas]

Whether or not the back-up is 'necessary' ultimately comes down to your personal opinion on the matter. Just because something can be done through alternative means doesn't inherently mean the status quo is flawed and in need of changing.

True. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve Government where we feel this is possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why such things need to be changed, though. It would seem to me to be unnecessarily complicated of a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, or if it does exist, is almost unnoticeable. Removing one position and filling that void with a patchwork of a variety of different responsibilities delegated to different people seems pointless if the current position works fine and simply requires an additional body.

I'll certainly grant that we don't need to change things - but if we only deal with matters of necessity then we can quickly eliminate a great deal of the Senate agenda. I'm arguing that the Vice Presidency represents a waste of talent that could be put to better use than occasionally performing functions that could easily, and arguably more appropriately, be carried out by others.

If you believe that the VP is a useful office - then there's little I can do to convince you otherwise (except possibly recommend you spend some time in it) and there's little point arguing over the proposed alternative arrangements for his 3 sometime functions.

It's quite measurable. Vice Presidents balance out tickets or unite parties behind one banner. Look at the last election. Lief, solid left-wing firebrand with supportive rhetoric to socialist ideas, chooses likable and largely uncontroversial and moderate Bacon King to be his running mate to soften the ticket. PiT, extreme libertarian with the stated real life goal of "abolishing" the government, chooses likable and protectionist moderate HappyWarrior, to broaden appeal. Also, minor as it might seem to some, there is always excitement over running-mate announcements during the campaigns.

Politicking and deal-making is possible without a VP. Instead of pandering using personality politics, candidates might actually have to propose policy initiativces to broaden appeal - instead of placing someone who 'lightens' the ticket and can sit twiddling their thumbs for 4 months.

Removing the Vice Presidency essentially makes the system of electing a president devolve into a "who is cutest" High School class-President style system where people like BK or HW (no offense to them) are almost always elected, or that there are so many people on the ballot that the preferencing approaches almost completely convoluted levels.

Is this the case in Senate elections?
Because if it's not, then what's the difference?
And if it is, then what's the point of us actually discussing legislative affairs?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My contention is that there is no serious problem. Perhaps in the days of stagnation of membership and shortage of able-bodied Atlasians might this be an issue, but we're not exactly short of people right now, and there seems to be no real problem in need of such a fix here, to essentially turn the entire history of Atlasian elections upside down.
[/quote]

Again, as I say, I'm not arguing that there is a "serious problem" - I'm just arguing that there may be a better way of doing things.

I'm suggesting that though that the limited functions of the Vice Presidency can be readily reassigned. That it is a waste of an office. A waste of potential talent. A waste of time.

If you believe that the Vice Presidency is the best solution for the limited tasks it is presented with - fine. I don't. I think there's a better way. Hence my amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Respectfully, we aren't one. So this point is moot.

We are a legislative assembly. The idea that the ideal solution for a tied vote in the chamber goes to the person elected to replace the President should he disappear strikes as quite remarkable.
Why can't this chamber settle it's own disputes? What weakness renders recourse to a random other office-holder the ideal solution?

As for your last point, it's not just about tie-breaking, though I'm disappointed you seemed to dismiss what I considered to be my most concise point.

I apologise if I have not addressed a point you made. I am seeking a genuine debate to tease out whether the office of the Vice Presidency is merited. Please re-quote the salient point, and I shall attempt to address it.

The tie-breaking seems to have taken hold as a great purpose of the office - and I'm genuinely perplexed at the notion that we have at present a rational solution for that. So I apologise if I labour that point.

[Fritz]

Not at all.  The Vice-President would ascend, and the office of VP would be temporarily vacant until a nominee is confirmed.  In the interim, the Dean would run the Senate.

[Јas]

The obvious solution to the ties problem is to increase the size of the Senate to 11 seats. And give the PPT the casting vote (ie; in the event of a tie, his vote would count twice. This happens in local government organising votes in England and Wales, fwiw). Problem solved.

It's perfectly reasonable to me. If I can get the Senate to support the abolition of the office, in principle, then maybe we can use this.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The obvious solution to the ties problem is to increase the size of the Senate to 11 seats. And give the PPT the casting vote (ie; in the event of a tie, his vote would count twice. This happens in local government organising votes in England and Wales, fwiw). Problem solved.

It's perfectly reasonable to me. If I can get the Senate to support the abolition of the office, in principle, then maybe we can use this.

I'll have to get back to your earlier lengthy post later as I'm quite tired and need some sleep.

But as for this, it seems rather silly when you consider it. As I said earlier, this is a solution to a problem that is created by your solution, to a "problem" we can't point to actually existing.

That seems unnecessary to me, I can't imagine how it's anything else, and to be frank, if your solution causes to a problem causes another problem, it's a bad solution.

[Јas]

The obvious solution to the ties problem is to increase the size of the Senate to 11 seats. And give the PPT the casting vote (ie; in the event of a tie, his vote would count twice. This happens in local government organising votes in England and Wales, fwiw). Problem solved.

It's perfectly reasonable to me. If I can get the Senate to support the abolition of the office, in principle, then maybe we can use this.

I'll have to get back to your earlier lengthy post later as I'm quite tired and need some sleep.

But as for this, it seems rather silly when you consider it. As I said earlier, this is a solution to a problem that is created by your solution, to a "problem" we can't point to actually existing.

That seems unnecessary to me, I can't imagine how it's anything else, and to be frank, if your solution causes to a problem causes another problem, it's a bad solution.

Again, I reiterate that I'm not contending the proposed change is necessary. I do look forward to you voting down all Senate bills and amendments that aren't 'necessary' though.

I contend there is a problem: the Vice Presidency is a waste of time, space and effort.
Is it absolutely necessary to do something about it? No.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Lest in times of national emergency, necessity is not the standard to apply to Senate business.

[Franzl]

I don't much like the idea of abolishing the office of VP, but I'm also not all that supportive of separate elections. I feel it could lead to quite a bit of friction if people of completely opposite ideologies were elected. On the other hand, it works in real state governments without too many problems, and it would make the process more democratic.

Undecided.

[Bacon King]

Aww

[Purple State]

On afleitch's point, perhaps we could involve the VP more in the Senate by making the VP the "eleventh" senator. It wouldn't actually change very many votes (as it would essentially serve to bolster the majority or break ties), but it would make the position a more active one.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Whether or not the back-up is 'necessary' ultimately comes down to your personal opinion on the matter. Just because something can be done through alternative means doesn't inherently mean the status quo is flawed and in need of changing.

True. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve Government where we feel this is possible.

Fair enough, this just seems like a completely out of the blue change to me, is all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why such things need to be changed, though. It would seem to me to be unnecessarily complicated of a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, or if it does exist, is almost unnoticeable. Removing one position and filling that void with a patchwork of a variety of different responsibilities delegated to different people seems pointless if the current position works fine and simply requires an additional body.
[/quote]

I'll certainly grant that we don't need to change things - but if we only deal with matters of necessity then we can quickly eliminate a great deal of the Senate agenda. I'm arguing that the Vice Presidency represents a waste of talent that could be put to better use than occasionally performing functions that could easily, and arguably more appropriately, be carried out by others.[/quote]

You keep coming back to this point, that it's a "waste of an office" and a "waste of talent." You also assert that the person could be "better utilized elsewhere."

Where? Eliminating an office for very little reason other than "this isn't how we do it in such and such land" just displaces another person and, in my opinion, wastes more "talent" than you argue it preserves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose I just don't see the point of a patchwork series of reforms distributing duties and procedure which is already neatly centralized in one position, and lessening the amount of people involved in the system. Not to mention conducting a snap election for President seems rather sudden of a move considering that it's the Presidency, an election we spend months of time and attention towards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Politicking and deal-making is possible without a VP. Instead of pandering using personality politics, candidates might actually have to propose policy initiativces to broaden appeal - instead of placing someone who 'lightens' the ticket and can sit twiddling their thumbs for 4 months.[/quote][/quote]

This would have alot more potency, to me, if candidates didn't already engage in debates and the publishing of lengthy political platforms. Franzl, Lief, and PiT have all written and distributed them, as has Al in a less serious form, but for obviously reasons. We've also seen tons of work put into ads and campaigning, and of course "personality politics." So your ideas don't really add anything to the system here, it only subtracts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this the case in Senate elections?
Because if it's not, then what's the difference?
And if it is, then what's the point of us actually discussing legislative affairs?[/quote]

No, I think we have a pretty good balance in the Senate, really. Alot of campaigning in the Senate is more hectic due to there being anywhere from 5-10 candidates in the At Large elections, so ideas, goals, and strong personalities are all important. You could actually argue that I won based on my promises of my obnoxious personality in the Senate, but I've also proposed countless important bills.

But the Senate requires alot more work than the Vice Presidency and even the Presidency, really. So you're not just electing a pretty face, you're electing a group of people that are constantly consumed with governing. As opposed to the Presidency, which mostly consists of initially making a few appointments and pasting your username on a passed bill.

Presidential elections are inherently alot more personality based, it's quite simple. You get one person to run at the top of the ticket that is focused on his goals and his policies, and you get another person to run on the bottom of the ticket that is designed to attract voters and balance off the top of the ticket. It's necessary to appeal to more people to win, so our current system mixes policy wonks and popular personalities. By eliminating the balance to the often divisive figures at the top, you arguably make the Presidential race much more focused on broadening appeal, than anything else, leading to, as I said, "who is the cutest" High-School class elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My contention is that there is no serious problem. Perhaps in the days of stagnation of membership and shortage of able-bodied Atlasians might this be an issue, but we're not exactly short of people right now, and there seems to be no real problem in need of such a fix here, to essentially turn the entire history of Atlasian elections upside down.
[/quote]

Again, as I say, I'm not arguing that there is a "serious problem" - I'm just arguing that there may be a better way of doing things.

I'm suggesting that though that the limited functions of the Vice Presidency can be readily reassigned. That it is a waste of an office. A waste of potential talent. A waste of time.[/quote]

As I said earlier, you seem to believe so strongly that it's a waste of time, that's fine, but where do you propose this "wasted talent" be put to use? You're not adding anything to the Vice Presidency or any other office, you're just eliminating an office we've had forever and distributing it's duties in a variety of ways to different positions.

Is it not more of a "waste" of talent to have every single potential Vice President sitting out all the campaigns and government affairs, rather than double the amount of people involved in the presidential election process and a job that requires occasional duties inherent to it's position and a substitution role?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Anyway I wanted to put this off until I posted, so lets get this underway:

The following amendment is now at a vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nay!

[Јas]

Aye

[Јas]

True. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve Government where we feel this is possible.

Fair enough, this just seems like a completely out of the blue change to me, is all.

As we were discussing the method for election of the VP, I think it's worthwhile considering whether the office is of any benefit. I don't favour sinecure positions in Atlasia. I guess this vote will show up those who do.

You keep coming back to this point, that it's a "waste of an office" and a "waste of talent." You also assert that the person could be "better utilized elsewhere."

Where? Eliminating an office for very little reason other than "this isn't how we do it in such and such land" just displaces another person and, in my opinion, wastes more "talent" than you argue it preserves.

Equally having an office just because that's how we do it in America is an equally silly proposition. If the person is an interested and active Atlasian then there are multiple positions of use in federal and regional politics that they could work on that would actually have impact.

I suppose I just don't see the point of a patchwork series of reforms distributing duties and procedure which is already neatly centralized in one position, and lessening the amount of people involved in the system. Not to mention conducting a snap election for President seems rather sudden of a move considering that it's the Presidency, an election we spend months of time and attention towards.

A patchwork of reforms would be necessary to cover the patchwork of limited duties of the VP. This however is completely secondary - the nature of the reforms are only important if the principle that the VP is a sinecure position is accepted. I'm honestly unsure how people can come to the conclusion that the position has some value.

I don't understand why we couldn't trust the electorate to make a reasonable decision on who to elect as President within a couple of weeks, rather than a couple of months.


[

This would have alot more potency, to me, if candidates didn't already engage in debates and the publishing of lengthy political platforms. Franzl, Lief, and PiT have all written and distributed them, as has Al in a less serious form, but for obviously reasons. We've also seen tons of work put into ads and campaigning, and of course "personality politics." So your ideas don't really add anything to the system here, it only subtracts.

Do VP's add to the campaign? Has there been a VP debate? Would it matter is there was? Have people seriously considered their vote based on how Swedish Cheese would break random Senate ties? Or how Lewis would do as substitute PPT? Or how Smid would do as substitute President?

No, I think we have a pretty good balance in the Senate, really. Alot of campaigning in the Senate is more hectic due to there being anywhere from 5-10 candidates in the At Large elections, so ideas, goals, and strong personalities are all important. You could actually argue that I won based on my promises of my obnoxious personality in the Senate, but I've also proposed countless important bills.

As an aside, no. You won because of your party label. Your policies, personality et al were, unfortunately, irrelevant. (which isn't to say I don't think you are a good Senator or are worthy of a place here).

But the Senate requires alot more work than the Vice Presidency and even the Presidency, really. So you're not just electing a pretty face, you're electing a group of people that are constantly consumed with governing. As opposed to the Presidency, which mostly consists of initially making a few appointments and pasting your username on a passed bill.

Because we elect Presidents who are willing to limit themselves to that. A strong President could force the Senate to work to his agenda. Again though, we're meandering...

Presidential elections are inherently alot more personality based, it's quite simple. You get one person to run at the top of the ticket that is focused on his goals and his policies, and you get another person to run on the bottom of the ticket that is designed to attract voters and balance off the top of the ticket. It's necessary to appeal to more people to win, so our current system mixes policy wonks and popular personalities. By eliminating the balance to the often divisive figures at the top, you arguably make the Presidential race much more focused on broadening appeal, than anything else, leading to, as I said, "who is the cutest" High-School class elections.

I understand your analysis, but I'm afraid I disagree that there is any real difference in this regard between Presidential, Senatorial, Gubernatorial or other elections in Atlasia.

As I said earlier, you seem to believe so strongly that it's a waste of time, that's fine, but where do you propose this "wasted talent" be put to use? You're not adding anything to the Vice Presidency or any other office, you're just eliminating an office we've had forever and distributing it's duties in a variety of ways to different positions.

Is it not more of a "waste" of talent to have every single potential Vice President sitting out all the campaigns and government affairs, rather than double the amount of people involved in the presidential election process and a job that requires occasional duties inherent to it's position and a substitution role?

I believe the good ones, the active ones, would get productively involved in Atlasian politics in some other way - maybe being candidates for other offices (making such elections more competitive). The addition of candidates to a non-position takes away from the pool of talent competing for other more substantive roles and so potentially dilutes the calibre of persons holding offices of import generally.

[tmthforu94]

Nay

[Franzl]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Јas]

I have seen the error of my ways. Truly mine eyes have been opened. So, striving as I do, to continue to improve our Government, and taking on board the valuable lessons I have learned, I present the following amendment.


Vice-Senator Amendment

Whereas this Senate recognises the importance of deputy positions,

Recognising the added political value of ticketed elections,

Acknowledging the need to avoid patchwork solutions which could be neatly aggregated otherwise,

It is hereby enacted that:

1. For all elections to the Senate, each Senator shall be elected on a ticket with a Vice-Senator.

2. The Vice-Senator shall exercise all powers and privileges of the office of Senator, when his associated Senator gives notice of absence, resigns, is expelled, or is otherwise unable to act as Senator.

3. The Vice-Senator for all regional Senators shall additionally have responsibilities within his regional legislature. These responsibilities shall include the following, but may be expanded as deemed appropriate by the regional legislature itself.
i) The regional Vice-Senator shall make casting votes where on a vote his regional legislature is evenly divided; and,
ii) The regional Vice-Senator shall deputise for the speaker of the regional legislature on such occasions as that office may be vacant, or where the speaker is absent, or otherwise unable to carry out his duties.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have seen the error of my ways. Truly mine eyes have been opened. So, striving as I do, to continue to improve our Government, and taking on board the valuable lessons I have learned, I present the following amendment.


Vice-Senator Amendment

Whereas this Senate recognises the importance of deputy positions,

Recognising the added political value of ticketed elections,

Acknowledging the need to avoid patchwork solutions which could be neatly aggregated otherwise,

It is hereby enacted that:

1. For all elections to the Senate, each Senator shall be elected on a ticket with a Vice-Senator.

2. The Vice-Senator shall exercise all powers and privileges of the office of Senator, when his associated Senator gives notice of absence, resigns, is expelled, or is otherwise unable to act as Senator.

3. The Vice-Senator for all regional Senators shall additionally have responsibilities within his regional legislature. These responsibilities shall include the following, but may be expanded as deemed appropriate by the regional legislature itself.
i) The regional Vice-Senator shall make casting votes where on a vote his regional legislature is evenly divided; and,
ii) The regional Vice-Senator shall deputise for the speaker of the regional legislature on such occasions as that office may be vacant, or where the speaker is absent, or otherwise unable to carry out his duties.

I do hope this is some kind of joke.