High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating]

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Who do you think? Hashemite

[Franzl]

On what basis would the Court decide whether a person was legitimately removed or not?

[afleitch]

I'm having some difficulty in understanding this. We are establishing 4 posts known as a 'High Authority' to decide whether or not a voter is deemed to be inactive? The Constitution allows for the Senate to establish the rules and procedure, but surely we need rely on law and the Court if there is dispute rather than establishing an overseeing body. Why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

[Hash]

FTR, I'm more inclined to support this proposition of Antonio than his previous one, in that it removes the stupid post requirements from zombie regulation attempts but I'm uneasy with the vagueness of the HAEV's job and how it open the door to potential abuse. I think if people are interested in this, which, knowing this Senate, they aren't, they prefer to vote NAY right now; some sort of regulations need to be established.

[Franzl]

I think if people are interested in this, which, knowing this Senate, they aren't, they prefer to vote NAY right now

Perhaps you could answer my question instead of just throwing insults at the Senate?

[Hash]

I think if people are interested in this, which, knowing this Senate, they aren't, they prefer to vote NAY right now

Perhaps you could answer my question instead of just throwing insults at the Senate?

I did not write this legislation, as I made clear in the introduction thread. I have a few ideas of my own, but I'd like the real sponsor of this bill to address the Senate on the issue.

And please don't deny the little interest this Senate has in zombie regulation.

[Franzl]

I think if people are interested in this, which, knowing this Senate, they aren't, they prefer to vote NAY right now

Perhaps you could answer my question instead of just throwing insults at the Senate?

And please don't deny the little interest this Senate has in zombie regulation.

I don't deny there are some members that show little interest, but I find it unfair to make such a statement as if it applied to the entire body when you know perfectly well that many of us believe in the intent of zombie reform, even if we have serious doubts about the effectiveness or viability of certain proposals.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honorable Senators,
This is the second bill proposed by Hashemite and I to solve the issue of zombie voters. Many of you, during the debate of the Protection of Democracy Act, expressed their sympathy as regards the intent of this bill, but also their doubts concerning the method proposed to deal with it. That's why I worked to propose a different one.
One of the main critic to the previous bill was that zombies could easily circumvent the post number requirement. I have to say that I agree in great part with those critics, and I wrote this bill in order to solve this issue. In general, every problem came from the fact that zombie voting can't be definited "mechanically". The notion of "zombie", even though being objective, needs some case-by-case analysis. The only way to have such analysis, is to have it done by a specialized authority. This authority will receive the powers necessary to decide who is a zombie voters.
Of course, the fact that HAEV will have the power to ban anyone from voting also creates some risk if it reveals to be partisanly biased. We should absolutely avoid this risk, and this bill sets three important protections. First of all, a member shall receive 7 "aye" votes in order to be confirmed, meaning more than one third of all the Senator will accept it. This system will force multipartisan deals, all the more so the authority shall consist in 1 JCPer, 1 PCPer, 1 DAer and one member from another party or independent. Secondly, one member can be banned only if all the four HAEV members agree in banning him : no possibility of partisan bias at all. Finally, every member shall have the possibility to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, once again to avoid unfair bannings. Honestly, I think all these precautions re excessive, but I guess it's the only way for this to pass.
Honorable Senators, you assured me that the purpose of my previous bill was good and that something needed to b done. Now it's time to prove your good faith. You are free to Amend this bill as you want. But your final vote must be affirmative.

[Purple State]

My biggest problem with this bill is that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe the HAEV should belong to the governors, who are closer to the people.

Also, the HAEV should just make recommendations, which the SoFA should then be able to approve/disapprove. This would better oversight and make it easier for people to file an appeal.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Despite a problem with the action of the committee, I have a problem with the selection process.

If the president can just veto anyone, then he'll keep vetoing people until only candidates from his party are inserted.  Then, they can just remove voters they do not like

[Јas]

If the president can just veto anyone, then he'll keep vetoing people until only candidates from his party are inserted. 

You seem to be confusing the actual job of President with DWTL's guide on how to be President.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If the president can just veto anyone, then he'll keep vetoing people until only candidates from his party are inserted. 

You seem to be confusing the actual job of President with DWTL's guide on how to be President.

Its a legitimate concern and not even something I would do as president.  I think a provision that should be added that any party that makes up at least 20% of the electoral will be represented if possible

[Antonio the Sixth]

My biggest problem with this bill is that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe the HAEV should belong to the governors, who are closer to the people.

Also, the HAEV should just make recommendations, which the SoFA should then be able to approve/disapprove. This would better oversight and make it easier for people to file an appeal.

Letting the power to ban people to the SoFA's discretion isn't a good idea IMO. The SoFA's powers are still very great and raising them would make him really dangerous.
As for Governors, their honesty (or their competence) could be compromised as well. Plus, we have plenty of cases of governors getting inactive or amost inactive, and this would be terrible. I know that raising the number of officials can be a problem, but it remains the best solution.

If the president can just veto anyone, then he'll keep vetoing people until only candidates from his party are inserted. 

You seem to be confusing the actual job of President with DWTL's guide on how to be President.

Its a legitimate concern and not even something I would do as president.  I think a provision that should be added that any party that makes up at least 20% of the electoral will be represented if possible

The bill provides that HAEV shall contain one member for each of the three major parties by number of members.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything remotely close to that

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nowhere in the bill does it say anything remotely close to that

It was in the bill I wrote. Seems that Hashemite removed it, and I'd like to know why he did.

[Хahar 🤔]

Perhaps the Presidential veto should be transferred to the supreme court.

And by no method of counting can I see three major parties. You can say there are two, or four, or five, but three?

[Antonio the Sixth]

And by no method of counting can I see three major parties. You can say there are two, or four, or five, but three?

I mean the three biggest. For the simple reason that we have 4 seats and the fourth should not be definited as belonging to a particular party.

[Јas]

One presumes the removal is that such a party enforced membership provision would render the committee useless.

I can't really foresee too many voters being adjudged inactive under the proposal as posted, but I'd be very surprised if the committee had any effect on anything if certain parties have guaranteed membership on the body.

[Antonio the Sixth]

One presumes the removal is that such a party enforced membership provision would render the committee useless.

I can't really foresee too many voters being adjudged inactive under the proposal as posted, but I'd be very surprised if the committee had any effect on anything if certain parties have guaranteed membership on the body.

This is true.

[Purple State]

My biggest problem with this bill is that it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe the HAEV should belong to the governors, who are closer to the people.

Also, the HAEV should just make recommendations, which the SoFA should then be able to approve/disapprove. This would better oversight and make it easier for people to file an appeal.

Letting the power to ban people to the SoFA's discretion isn't a good idea IMO. The SoFA's powers are still very great and raising them would make him really dangerous.
As for Governors, their honesty (or their competence) could be compromised as well. Plus, we have plenty of cases of governors getting inactive or amost inactive, and this would be terrible. I know that raising the number of officials can be a problem, but it remains the best solution.

You missed both of my points.. The panel of governors idea is so that we do not create new offices, which Atlasia certainly doesn't need. The SoFA oversight idea does not give the SoFA much more power. He can only approve/disapprove of the committee's recommendations.

[MaxQue]

I have difficulties to believe than a party will accept to deregister his members.

[Marokai Backbeat]

By the way I oppose this if it wasn't already clear. I don't think this bill is workable, first of all, and could have potentially incredibly disruptive and chaotic effects on Atlasia.

I sympathize with what Antonio and Hash are trying to accomplish, but.. come on.

[Hash]

I sympathize with what Antonio and Hash are trying to accomplish, but.. come on.

Do you feel that anything can be done?

FTR, I'm personally open to giving these responsibilities to a more able body if need and demand be, such as the Courts, Senators or Governors even.

[Fritz]

I agree with Marokai's assessment.  And to answer your question, Hashemite, no- I do not believe anything can or should be done.  As I've said numerous times, legislation of this ilk creates more problems than it attempts to solve.  "Zombies" are an unfortunate fact of life here.

There are widely varying definitions of what constitutes a "zombie" in Atlasia.  Personally, I define it as a voter who registers specifically for voting in one election, then disappears.  Or perhaps comes to vote in the next election, barely meeting the post requirements to be eligible to do so.  (I forget what the posting requirement between elections is, someone remind me.)  I do not accept that an active poster in the forum who rarely if ever posts in Atlasia is a "zombie", and I have repeatedly opposed legislation that would eliminate such voters.

By my definition of the term, zombies are by definition newbies.  We have no way of knowing whether a newbie who registers to vote with the minimum post requirement will turn out to be a "zombie", or whether  they will become active participants.  Such registrants are therefore worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt.

[Hans-im-Glück]

I like the idea to build a High Authority for Ethics, but on the other hand then exists 4 more officeholders and do we really need them? Then Atlasia will be come to a "tribunal-state". This I don't want.