High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill [Debating]

[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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Alright I think a good case can be made for some zombies, like the guy who just registered with the ARC after 50 posts and then when asked what to do was instructed to wait until told to vote

lol!

[Alexander Hamilton]

None of these reforms will accomplish anything.

[Alexander Hamilton]

None of these reforms will accomplish anything good for me.

Fixed.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Alexander Hamilton]

The JCP has 7 Senators.

Marokai
Fritz
Franken
Hashemite
Franzl
afleitch
MaxQue

[Alexander Hamilton]

Shouldn't this have to be an amendment?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Shouldn't this have to be an amendment?

Nice try, I know you would love to get our hands on ratification to block it with your zombies, but I see no reason why this has to be an Amendment.

There is no where in the Constitution where I can find text that says the Senate has any authority to designate a body to edit voter rolls and determine voter eligibility. This would require a Constitutional amendment.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3:
A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation.

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This "bill" has to be an amendment.

Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3:
A voter registration shall only remain valid if the voter remains an active member of the Forum at large. The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation.

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.

You really need to learn how to read. This bill creates an organization which shall be made up of three individuals (as last I read) which shall look over the activity of each individual brought forward, and remove them from the voter rolls if there is unanimous agreement.

In other words, defining activity requirements, totally in the Senate's authority.

This doesn't define anything at all. It simply produces a body that can do whatever it wants.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization.

I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal.

Active? Why should people be forced to post? A lot of people like to just read. The JCP has plenty of voters like that. I never posted on this site until I was told to and now I post too much. As I told Yankee, I never had anything to say when I first signed up so of course I didn't post.

[Alexander Hamilton]

You can believe whatever you like, but I happen to side with the law. I know you're not actually responding because you care, you seldom post more than a sentence or two, but the Senate here is creating a body which shall evaluate and define activity requirements and enforce them. Anyone with half a brain realizes that's perfectly in line with Article 5, Section 3, Clause 3.

There is no outline of what this body can do. There is no definition. This body could purge you if it wanted.

"Purging" as you call it requires unanimous agreement, and I'm free to appeal if I want to, which is the safety valve to this organization. It's perfectly fine.

Yeah, opebo and Marokai sound like perfectly objective checks on this organization.

I can promise you it won't be personal at all. If someone is active at the forum at large, then I would see no reason to be against their appeal.

Active? Why should people be forced to post? A lot of people like to just read. The JCP has plenty of voters like that. I never posted on this site until I was told to and now I post too much. As I told Yankee, I never had anything to say when I first signed up so of course I didn't post.

I'll let this post speak for itself. I don't think I have to argue against someone who is actively defending people who don't post at all.

What should I care if people post 5 times a week or 50 times a day?

Maybe they don't post, cuz they, um, have a job, or something normal like that.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

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.

Depends on how you enter the thread. I could have clicked the last page, or been viewing the initial page while logged out and logged in from there. I never saw your post.