High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating]

[Franzl]

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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Franzl]

On the other hand, I don't think that people who only post rarely in the elections board but still post in the rest of the forum are zombies. Not every voter needs to be fastidiously involved in the political debate here, just like in real life countries some voters are more informed and some take a greater part in civil society and interaction with politicians than others.

That's the main problem, yes, defining what constitutes a zombie.

I'm very spectical there's any objective way to do it.

[Franzl]

Aye on the amendment.

[Franzl]

Amendments offered:

Section 1(4) is amended to 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."

Clause 5 is added to Section 2: "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."

Since you are the sponsor, this will be considered adopted unless someone rejects within 24 hours.

[Franzl]

I would like to start a final vote as soon as possible, but debate is still ongoing at this time.

As to my own vote...I remain completely undecided.

[Franzl]

So, can we have a final vote please ?

I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing.

[Franzl]

So, can we have a final vote please ?

I would like to, but I feel that debate is still ongoing.

The debate is cause by people who are not Senators, and who don't bring anything contructive.

I'm required to wait 24 hours after the last debate among senators.

Unless someone wishes to move to invoke cloture, but that would require one more vote than regular passage.

[Franzl]

I hereby open a final vote on this bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

[Franzl]

I've made my decision.

Despite my initial and, to be perfectly honest, ongoing sceptical views about how this would work in practice, I believe we should give the idea a chance.

There are very many safeguards in place to ensure that people aren't denied their right to vote for mere political reasons.

Not only the supermajority required to confirm members of the HAEV, but also the fact that it requires a 3-0 vote there to actually remove someone from the voter list. Not to mention the possible appeal to the Supreme Court.


I'm willing to see how it turns out if implemented.

I vote Aye.

[Franzl]

Aye: 3
Nay: 1

2 more votes in favor are required for passage.

[Franzl]

This bill has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Franzl]

I hope Lief vetoes this.

If senators stand to their votes, there are sufficient to override.

[Franzl]

This bill passes.

I hereby present it to the President for his signature or veto.