High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating]

[Antonio the Sixth]

People, this bill is unperfect, true. But most of you are saying that its purpose is good.
Then please propose some amendments, and debate about then. it's up to you now. Just don't do nothing.

[Franzl]

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this....although I admit I'm somewhat spectical.

One thing has not been answered (as far as I can see).

How is the Supreme Court to decide whether a removal was legitimate or not? On what basis?

[Antonio the Sixth]

How is the Supreme Court to decide whether a removal was legitimate or not? On what basis?

My purpose was to make so that the Supreme Court could annul a HAEV decision in case of blatant partisan/personal bias.

Anyways, work on it guys. You are Senators, I'm not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'll let debate go on for a little while longer on this bill, and others, due to the recent technical issues plaguing the site.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bump.
Don't let it die once again.

[Hash]

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.

[MaxQue]

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

I still want an answer to that obvious problem.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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?

Seeing as the LNF and ARC are of comparable size, you can't really make a ruling for four major parties. It's either one or five.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

I still want an answer to that obvious problem.

I think you are right, if it's what you want to hear. Now, should I also propose all the Amendmets needed ? You are 10 and none of you has done for the moment.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

Just to clarify this....I'm still not sold on this idea, and I remain sceptical of how this would work in practice.

I do think the changes I made would be positive, though.

[Hash]

I will accept this amendment as friendly if you change Section 3, clause 2 to 5 instead of 4. Or if not, a simple plurality could do, I suppose.

[Franzl]

I said 4 because that is the same number required to block a constitutional amendment or kill a filibuster.

Meaning you need 7/10 in favor of eliminating a "zombie".

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree with almost everything, except the change to 3.2. Giving the power to overtun HAEV's decisions to the Senate would make decisions too partisan IMO, whereas the Supreme Court is supposed to be more independent.

[Franzl]

I agree with almost everything, except the change to 3.2. Giving the power to overtun HAEV's decisions to the Senate would make decisions too partisan IMO, whereas the Supreme Court is supposed to be more independent.

I understand that concern, but I don't see how the Supreme Court could rule on that matter. The Supreme Court is there to interpret law, and I don't see any legal basis to rule someone sufficiently active or entirely inactive.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I agree with almost everything, except the change to 3.2. Giving the power to overtun HAEV's decisions to the Senate would make decisions too partisan IMO, whereas the Supreme Court is supposed to be more independent.

I understand that concern, but I don't see how the Supreme Court could rule on that matter. The Supreme Court is there to interpret law, and I don't see any legal basis to rule someone sufficiently active or entirely inactive.

Let's put it that way. The law says that the HAEV shall not take decisions that are partisanly/personally biased. Therefore, the Supreme Court shall be able to interpret the law regarding a particular case, saying if this particular case shows some of the bias outlined by the law. Just change the bill to make it clear.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I like Franzl's amendment, but remain skeptical.  I do think adding a way to remove trolls as voters is a good move as well.  I mean people like Hamilton who are near unanimously seen as trying to disrupt the game and contribute nothing should be removed

[Franzl]

I don't think we're going to come up with anything we're truly comfortable with. I'm sceptical about it, but I dunno.

Maybe we should outline specific guidelines for the HAEV to use for consideration, even if they're non-binding.

Or perhaps we should add a self-repealing provision if it isn't confirmed again, in like 6 months, by a future Senate.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think the problem right now is not with zombies, but instead has shifted to trolls

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the problem right now is not with zombies, but instead has shifted to trolls

It bounces back and forth between them.


I am undecided on this right now.

[Hash]

I think the problem right now is not with zombies, but instead has shifted to trolls

There is significant overlap between both categories.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think the problem right now is not with zombies, but instead has shifted to trolls

There is significant overlap between both categories.

How so?  The trolls post a lot yet nothing significant, they are not zombies, drones but not zombies

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both problems need to be dealt, but we shouldn't make it fail again just because people currently lost attention.

[Franzl]

Both problems need to be dealt, but we shouldn't make it fail again just because people currently lost attention.

If Hashemite and Marokai don't mind, I would like to request a vote on my amendment, just to see how the Senate feels about it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both problems need to be dealt, but we shouldn't make it fail again just because people currently lost attention.

If Hashemite and Marokai don't mind, I would like to request a vote on my amendment, just to see how the Senate feels about it.

Fine wit that. But something needs to be done on the last clause.