SENATE BILL: 5th Amendment to the Proportional Representation Act (law'd)

[bgwah]

I'm giving this the forum affairs slot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: bgwah

[Napoleon]

Motion to table simply because I think its one of the worst ideas ever

[bgwah]

Why?

[Napoleon]

Why?

I've already said why but any law that allows an election loser to end up with a seat will meet my strongest and firmest opposition.

[bgwah]

Why not introduce an amendment then? The current system obviously doesn't work terribly well if we have to wait until two weeks after the swearing in date (which is almost a month after the initial election). I think this is a problem that needs to be fixed with one solution or another. That's what this thread is before---determining a solution. I've proposed one. That doesn't mean we can't come up with a better one via amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Considering the system we are dealing with here, I don't see much justification for sticklerism regarding winners and losers. Such would inevitably require one to toss the whole thing.


As to a solution to the problem that precipated this, I presently have a fairly open mind as to the solution. One thing is for certain. We shouldn't have to delay four weeks to hold a special election, when we know for sure someone, who won, isn't going to take their seat immediately after the election finished.

[bgwah]

Well we're voting on a motion to table. Please vote aye, nay or abstain.


Nay. This is something we need to debate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We have a problem that needs to be solved here, one way or the other.


Nay

[bgwah]

Re-reading the OSPR, it looks like you can't motion to table until the 72 hour debate period has passed... But it's a little unclear. Thoughts, Yankee?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Re-reading the OSPR, it looks like you can't motion to table until the 72 hour debate period has passed... But it's a little unclear. Thoughts, Yankee?

What are you reading that you are interpretting as such?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As long as debate is occuring Section 5 allows it regardless of which piece of debate we are in (first, second tihrd 72 hours and so on). Another Section though, is another story.

[bgwah]

Alright, that clears up my confusion. Thank you. The vote continues.

[Napoleon]

Lol Nay I guess.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Nay

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Nay

[bgwah]

The motion to table has failed. Debate resumes.

[Napoleon]

Sorry. Debate could have continued during that. :/

[bgwah]

It's alright. If you don't like my proposed change, what would you prefer?

[Napoleon]

A by-election like we already do...

[bgwah]

What about something like this (not an official amendment yet):

Section 1, Clause 2 shall be amended to read:
2) Clause 7 shall be added to Section 3 and read "Should a candidate or candidates be certified victorious in an at-large STV election and concede the seat prior to the date on which they are to swear-in, a special election will be held as if the seat were already vacant.

That last part might be a little vague. I can't recall which law deals with special elections, since it would be easier to cite that.

[bgwah]

No comment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well you probably would need to cite that later sections on special elections, but other than that I would be fine with that idea. As I said, I really don't have a preference between by elections or like with the current text, recalculating the results without the top 5 finishers. 


As for the current text you would also need a set standard for someone to officially decline their seat, like requiring that notification be given to the PPT or the SoFE by the Senator-elect declining to take a seat. Otherwise you might have people claiming they didn't seriously mean it or whatever.

[bgwah]

Well yes I would be more specific, and cite another part of the PRA dealing with special elections. But I was just wondering, for those who dislike my original idea, if something along the lines of that proposal would be preferable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well yes I would be more specific, and cite another part of the PRA dealing with special elections. But I was just wondering, for those who dislike my original idea, if something along the lines of that proposal would be preferable.

I know, but the blank page was becoming annoying to me, so I thought I would "help".

[bgwah]

What would you guys think about just letting the parties choose a replacement?

This would be most beneficial to a party that could only win 1/5 seats, but not a 1 seat special election. So this isn't me trying to craft something that would be beneficial to the JCP...

[Napoleon]

I wouldn't support that. First of all, as we just witnessed, elections are fun. Lets have them. Secondly, the seat we just filled is from a party that no longer exists. That wouldn't even work.

I think countbacks and appointments are insufficiently democratic.

The only issue with the current system is the delay.