High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:35:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating] (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating]  (Read 19858 times)
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« on: November 27, 2009, 11:31:20 AM »

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.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2009, 02:11:01 PM »

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.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2009, 10:42:04 PM »

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.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2009, 04:01:47 PM »

Can someone explain in a short paragraph what the exact procedure is for this body, from choosing membership to the actual revocation of citizenship.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2009, 02:00:10 PM »

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.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2009, 08:01:02 PM »

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."
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2009, 05:04:09 PM »

With those changes, this body will now be considerably more structured and efficient. It should also help the Court determine whether the body is acting within its limits.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2009, 05:37:17 PM »

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2009, 05:58:45 PM »

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills.

For Lief (and anyone else): This body, made up of three members, will be appointed by the President and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. They will then form guidelines by which to judge whether individuals can be judged to be what we term "zombies" that are detrimental to the game. These guidelines and all future edits must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The body may then only judge someone to be inactive and remove them by a unanimous vote. At this point, the ruling may be appealed by the affected individual to the Supreme Court, which may overrule this body for overstepping its guidelines or any other illegal action.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2009, 06:11:18 PM »

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills.


The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread.

I didn't realize Senate discussions to improve a bill make a thread a train-wreck. If you don't like the sausage-making then don't get involved. If you want to get involved, make sure you know what you're talking about.

The President didn't he attack the bill when he didn't know what was in it, which you seemed to have no trouble doing. Say your sorry, educate yourself, and then come back with a relevant response if you really want to be a part of Senate deliberations.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2009, 06:18:14 PM »

Umm, Hammy, the newly included Section 2, Clause 5 requires that this body pass guidelines it must abide by before actually doing anything and those guidelines must be passed by two-thirds of the Senate.

This is: a) completely within the powers of the Senate, b) properly regulated to ensure it is not abused, and c) a step in the right direction.

I am referring to the bill in the OP, if it has been updated, I'd hope to see the text revised. Then I can make a more accurate determination.

I provided an amendment that Hash then proposed (which means it was accepted as friendly) that addressed the issue you brought up 2 pages ago or so. For someone who wants to be so involved in Senate debate, you should more closely follow the evolution of bills.


The President doesn't even know what is going on in this trainwreck of a thread.

I didn't realize Senate discussions to improve a bill make a thread a train-wreck. If you don't like the sausage-making then don't get involved. If you want to get involved, make sure you know what you're talking about.

The President didn't he attack the bill when he didn't know what was in it, which you seemed to have no trouble doing. Say your sorry, educate yourself, and then come back with a relevant response if you really want to be a part of Senate deliberations.

I explicitly referred to the text of the original post in my analysis. I have no need to apologize. Stop trying to play victim all the time.

Show me where you made that explicit. I sure don't see it.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2009, 06:32:53 PM »

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted.

I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them.

Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2009, 06:37:04 PM »

This doesn't define any activity requirements (at least in the bill text in the OP). All it does is create a body to purge political opponents.

Then I stand corrected on that point. Duly noted.

I would urge you in the future to discuss the bill as it stands, rather than what you may see in the first post. It doesn't help to rehash debates that have already been had earlier in the thread. Also, I wrote an amendment as a direct response to a worry you had a few pages back. Would be nice if you checked back to see that people are taking your worries into account, rather than ignoring them.

Again, if you want to be involved in making the sausage, you have to keep track of what is being put in or being taken out.

I apologize for not having the time to dig through an 8 page thread looking for the text of a bill that may or may not be Constitutional while an election is going on...

That being said, it would be nice if Marokai updated the initial post.

The initial post shouldn't be updated. It helps to be able to see the evolution of the bill when it is Wiki'd.

You had already posted in this thread. If you hadn't checked the thread since that post, there would have been a little "New" icon. If you clicked it you would end up right where you left off, which is right where I put forward an amendment fixing your problem with the bill.

As for the constitutional issue, you could have figured that out if you read the relevant part of the Constitution. It didn't necessitate so many posts.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2009, 05:58:14 PM »

Let me apologize to Lief for not getting back to him. The sabbath will tend to do that.

For Lief (and anyone else): This body, made up of three members, will be appointed by the President and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate. They will then form guidelines by which to judge whether individuals can be judged to be what we term "zombies" that are detrimental to the game. These guidelines and all future edits must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The body may then only judge someone to be inactive and remove them by a unanimous vote. At this point, the ruling may be appealed by the affected individual to the Supreme Court, which may overrule this body for overstepping its guidelines or any other illegal action.

Thank you. Would these people have to be citizens who currently do not hold office? And why does the Senate feel it needs to give away its authority to pass these "guidelines" regarding zombies?

I would say allowing the Senate to delegate these rules to a body that is focused solely on this one task will de-politicize the procedure as much as possible. In addition, the Senate will have to pass the guidelines determined by the body with a two-thirds vote, so it isn't completely divested from the process.

Your first question is a good one and I am not sure of the answer. Who would be able to answer it? I guess you would have to appoint someone who currently holds office, have them refuse to resign their previous position and then take it to the Supreme Court to find out.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 12 queries.