High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating]

[Alexander Hamilton]

None of these reforms will accomplish anything good for me.

Fixed.

These would help me. They only hurt JCP and PCP.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The fact is zombie is posting too little, trolling results in posting too much.  How can you have a solution that fixes both?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The fact is zombie is posting too little, trolling results in posting too much.  How can you have a solution that fixes both?

We'll have one solution for each one. But the thing you should learn is that the only way to improve things is to accept to do some compromises and to support bills you can see as unperfect.

[Marokai Backbeat]

5 Ayes, 2 Nays, 1 Abstaining. This bill has been amended.

Now, was there another amendment presented for a vote, or was it accepted as friendly?

[MaxQue]

The fact is zombie is posting too little, trolling results in posting too much.  How can you have a solution that fixes both?

Well, that is two different problems who are needing two different solutions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

5 Ayes, 2 Nays, 1 Abstaining. This bill has been amended.

Now, was there another amendment presented for a vote, or was it accepted as friendly?

I think the bill is pretty good now. Has some Senator any particular concern ?

[Fritz]

Yes.  It was a bad bill before it was amended, and it still is.

DWTL makes a good point about the latest new register.  He registered after 50 posts, then asked what to do, and was told by his party leader that he would be told when to vote.  This is classic and wholly obvious zombie-ism.

In spite of that, we still have no way of knowing whether this newbie will become an active participant in the forum.  And if the ARC has representation on the HAEV panel, that member would object to him being declared inactive.

This bill makes the requirements for voting in an election subjective rather than objective.  Since we can't legally define what exactly a zombie is, we'll have a panel decide who the zombies are.  I preferred the bill in its original form, with the appeal leading to the court.  That, I think, is where all of these cases will eventually land, in any event.

[Antonio the Sixth]

  I preferred the bill in its original form, with the appeal leading to the court. 

It has indeed been restaured.
With the current bill, nobody could be arbitrarily removed, the guarantees are extremely solid.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Amendment offered:

Section 3: Possibility of Appeal

Whereas:
-The notion of "inactive" specified in Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution can be subject to different interpretations, and that the HAEV may potentially abuse this ambiguity by declaring as "inactive" an Atlasian citizen who should not be considered so.
- The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution in the case when its formulation is ambiguous.

1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision.
2. In the case previously specified, the Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. The procedure used shall be the same as for any court case.

For what it's worth I consider this bill friendily amended with the above unless someone objects, considering it was offered by the sponsor himself.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Yes.  It was a bad bill before it was amended, and it still is.

DWTL makes a good point about the latest new register.  He registered after 50 posts, then asked what to do, and was told by his party leader that he would be told when to vote.  This is classic and wholly obvious zombie-ism.

In spite of that, we still have no way of knowing whether this newbie will become an active participant in the forum.  And if the ARC has representation on the HAEV panel, that member would object to him being declared inactive.

This bill makes the requirements for voting in an election subjective rather than objective.  Since we can't legally define what exactly a zombie is, we'll have a panel decide who the zombies are.  I preferred the bill in its original form, with the appeal leading to the court.  That, I think, is where all of these cases will eventually land, in any event.

FTR, I thought it was blatantly obvious that I was merely saying that to piss people off given all the RPP controversies. I told the dude by PM to do some research on the candidates and find what fits him best and did not mind that he voted to endorse RPP members for high preferences.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bump.

Please tell us if you have any precise concern, and if you have propose Amendment to improve the bill.

[Hash]

ftr, I feel this is the closest we can come at making real zombie reform without instituting ridiculous posting requirements, activity checks and all that junk. I think this is probably the best thing if you really want zombie reform, and I guess that opposition to this is largely opposition to the principle of zombie reform in itself.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It just seems to be too dangerous of a ground to tread... I don't plan on staying "active" here forever, that doesn't mean I don't want to vote for the candidates I approve of. Mr. Moderate once said the same thing, he went absent for a while and only recently became more active. I don't want a partisan board determining who is and is not a "zombie" unless there is a representative from every major party included.

[Purple State]

It just seems to be too dangerous of a ground to tread... I don't plan on staying "active" here forever, that doesn't mean I don't want to vote for the candidates I approve of. Mr. Moderate once said the same thing, he went absent for a while and only recently became more active. I don't want a partisan board determining who is and is not a "zombie" unless there is a representative from every major party included.

If such an authority is established, it would need to set up coherent guidelines that would make it clear what the process for this is. The issue with making party seats is that this is simply artificial polypartisanship and only creates deadlock.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It just seems to be too dangerous of a ground to tread... I don't plan on staying "active" here forever, that doesn't mean I don't want to vote for the candidates I approve of. Mr. Moderate once said the same thing, he went absent for a while and only recently became more active. I don't want a partisan board determining who is and is not a "zombie" unless there is a representative from every major party included.

If such an authority is established, it would need to set up coherent guidelines that would make it clear what the process for this is. The issue with making party seats is that this is simply artificial polypartisanship and only creates deadlock.

IMO, the Supreme Court is already a strong "guideline". In fact, this bills give it almost full powers on this domain.

If anyone is interested in setting more precise guidelines, I'd like him to propose an amendment, so that we can discuss on it.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'm sorry, but three Democrats are sitting on the Supreme Court... I honestly don't want them judging who are and aren't "active" voters.

[MaxQue]

I'm sorry, but three Democrats are sitting on the Supreme Court... I honestly don't want them judging who are and aren't "active" voters.

I'm sure than Sam Spade is happy to know that...

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'm sorry, but three Democrats are sitting on the Supreme Court... I honestly don't want them judging who are and aren't "active" voters.

I'm sure than Sam Spade is happy to know that...

Sam Spade is a Democrat and always has been.

[Purple State]

Can someone explain in a short paragraph what the exact procedure is for this body, from choosing membership to the actual revocation of citizenship.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm sorry, but three Democrats are sitting on the Supreme Court... I honestly don't want them judging who are and aren't "active" voters.

I'm sure than Sam Spade is happy to know that...

Sam Spade is a Democrat and always has been.

Can someone explain in a short paragraph what the exact procedure is for this body, from choosing membership to the actual revocation of citizenship.

[quote]High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill

The High Authority for Ethics in Voting (HAEV) is hereby established.

Section 1 : Nomination Process and Requirements

1. The High Authority for Ethics in Voting shall be composed of three members.
2. One member of the HAEV shall be nominated every two months. If there are already 3 members in office, the most recently nominated member shall replace the longest-serving member. Immediately after passage of this bill, all three members shall be elected simultaneously.
3. The President shall nominate candidates to the HAEV with the advice and consent of the Senate.
4. A voting booth shall be opened in the Atlas Fantasy Government board immediately after a candidate to the HAEV has been suggested. Senators shall vote "aye" if they approve of the nomination of a candidate, "nay" if they disagree and "abstain" if they have no opinion. Every candidate receiving 7 or more "aye" votes shall become a member of the HAEV.

Section 2 : Role and Powers

1. In accordance with Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution, the HAEV shall have the power to declare an Atlasian Citizen inactive, and therefore to remove the registration in question from the Registered Voters List effective one week after its decision.
2. Any Atlasian Citizen who is not declared inactive by the HAEV shall be considered as active, unless Atlasian law provides otherwise.
3. The HAEV shall deliberate in a public and dedicated thread located in the Atlas Fantasy Government board.
4. An Atlasian Citizen shall be declared inactive by the HAEV only if all three members express their agreement in considering he or she as inactive.

Section 3: Possibility of Appeal

Whereas:
-The notion of "inactive" specified in Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution can be subject to different interpretations, and that the HAEV may potentially abuse this ambiguity by declaring as "inactive" an Atlasian citizen who should not be considered so.
- The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution in the case when its formulation is ambiguous.

1. An Atlasian Citizen who has been declared inactive by the HAEV shall have the right to appeal said declaration in the week following the HAEV's decision.
2. In the case previously specified, the Supreme Court shall have the power to annul the decision of the HAEV. The procedure used shall be the same as for any court case.

[Purple State]

Section 1(4) should read: Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor.

Otherwise it is good and I support this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Section 1(4) should read: Nominees to the HAEV shall be subject to a confirmation process as determined by the OSPR. The Senate must confirm the nominee by a two-thirds vote in favor.

Seems right. I ask a Senator to introduce it.

[Alexander Hamilton]

NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Majority party will not be allowed to determine who gets to vote. Is this Saddam's Iraq?

[Lief 🗽]

NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Majority party will not be allowed to determine who gets to vote. Is this Saddam's Iraq?

I like to think it's Lief's Atlasia, but frankly I've been disappointed in the number of statues built in my honor.

[Purple State]

NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Majority party will not be allowed to determine who gets to vote. Is this Saddam's Iraq?

Did you miss the part where 7 senators need to approve? The JCP can't force these things through. Plus, the Supreme Court tends to judge fairly when it doesn't involve constitutional interpretations.

How about a security mechanism? I could live with that. If a senator would introduce the following amendment, in addition to the above one.

I would recommend the following for Section 2, as clause 5: "The HAEV shall choose a presiding officer to ensure the proper functioning of the body. The HAEV shall create binding guidelines before acting in its designated capacity, the institution and future amendment of which must be affirmed by two-thirds of the Senate."