Congressional Discussion Thread
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee:
Quote from: Poirot on November 16, 2017, 08:21:04 PM
The House will have to debate a bill version with a period of time to register again. With agreement with Senate the House could have debated the more extensive bill right away.
Therefore it doesn't extend the restriction, since during that wait time they can withdraw their deregistration request, which by definition cuts into the "cannot reregister thing" You don't need to reregister when you can just stay registered and avoid being deregistered to begin with.
Technically it doesn't extend the restriction. In practice it does. Someone makes the decision to deregister and make a post and leave. The person might not stay for 7 days waiting for the RG to finally change the voters list.
For the person it's not 30 days before rejoining since they left (made the post) because you add 7 days before the RG makes the decision official. So it's 37 days after they decided to leave. It extends the time since they decided to deregister because we're asking the RG to wait before recording it.
Why is that any different from someone not returning on the other end of the restriction? Yes they may not return during the remainder of the 7 days, but they can under the law (assuming it is passed). Just like after the thirty days, the law says they can return, but they might not return until 35 days or forty days, or six months, or two years.
The restriction is the restriction, it is 30 days. Them not returning during the seven days, in which they can withdraw does not extend the restriction, anymore then them not returning for x number of days after the restriction expires would.
Of course as I said before, this is a theoretical discussion as no such 30 day restriction is presently in law and there is no guarantee that it will be. I presently lean no on it for a variety of reasons.
Poirot:
The Senate passed a number of days before re-registration. Deregistration issues should be discussed in one bill to make it a coherent package bill to deal with an issue. It seesm logic to have a "cooling off" period to reverse a decision if you can't register again for weeks. If we don't have to wait to register again the waiting period for deregistration is almost about nothing. It gives someone a chance to keep an office and maybe vote if the election is withing a week but if you deregistered it was not that important for you anyway and you don't need 7 days for that, 2 days waiting period is enough. If we can register again whenever we want, there are little consequences to deregistering, there is no meaninful utility to have a law on waiting period for deregistration.
Not adding a waiting period for deregistration keeps things simple for counting days, you just check the post in the registration thread to see when someone deregistered. You don't have to add an arbitrary number of days decided by Nyman to make it official, and then add a number of days before you can return.
Let people be free to go when they decide. If someone decides to take a break it's effective when they decide. If ithe law says 30 days before coming back, someone decided to take a month break starting November 20, they can return December 21. A waiting period for deregistration extends the 30 day break because you are adding artificially a number of days before deregistration is officia. You are makin longer the period before someone can return (I'm not talking of people you change their mind every day and can reverse their decision the next day). It also makes keeping track less easy since the deregistration date in the registration thread is not the official date of deregistration.
My viewpoint is based on not making wait too long players before they can come back after deregistering and assumed there is going to be a period of wait before coming back.
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee:
Quote from: Poirot on November 19, 2017, 05:51:28 PM
The Senate passed a number of days before re-registration. Deregistration issues should be discussed in one bill to make it a coherent package bill to deal with an issue. It seesm logic to have a "cooling off" period to reverse a decision if you can't register again for weeks. If we don't have to wait to register again the waiting period for deregistration is almost about nothing. It gives someone a chance to keep an office and maybe vote if the election is withing a week but if you deregistered it was not that important for you anyway and you don't need 7 days for that, 2 days waiting period is enough. If we can register again whenever we want, there are little consequences to deregistering, there is no meaninful utility to have a law on waiting period for deregistration.
Not adding a waiting period for deregistration keeps things simple for counting days, you just check the post in the registration thread to see when someone deregistered. You don't have to add an arbitrary number of days decided by Nyman to make it official, and then add a number of days before you can return.
Let people be free to go when they decide. If someone decides to take a break it's effective when they decide. If ithe law says 30 days before coming back, someone decided to take a month break starting November 20, they can return December 21. A waiting period for deregistration extends the 30 day break because you are adding artificially a number of days before deregistration is officia. You are makin longer the period before someone can return (I'm not talking of people you change their mind every day and can reverse their decision the next day). It also makes keeping track less easy since the deregistration date in the registration thread is not the official date of deregistration.
My viewpoint is based on not making wait too long players before they can come back after deregistering and assumed there is going to be a period of wait before coming back.
Well I would tend to agree at least in part, and a good bit of why I voted for the waiting period and for it to be at seven was in anticipation that the restriction would be past at some length (it did pass the Senate overwhelmingly), and if it is going to happen, we should definitely have that in place.
If that were to fail the House though, then I would be open to revisiting the waiting period and maybe even shortening it since it is not occurring against a backdrop of an anticipated subsequent bill coming down the pike like happened here.
And yes I would agree completely, that these should have been kept together but I would note that these were both Senate originated bills and so their separation is something that the Senators would have to answer to.
Poirot:
I am against the Voting clarification amendment.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]
[/quote]
I prefer to keep the voting period 72 hours that ends at the strike of midnight like it was always. It's a long enough period to vote and adding one minute is not essential.
That being said if there is clarification on voting hours it should be made in the electoral law and not the Bill of Rights in the constitution. There could be consequences in putting voting hours in the bill of Rights. Does this mean no other election at any level can be held except from Friday to Saturday. It's unclear to me if this would also apply to referendums. Would regions be forced to used the same voting calendar for regional elections? I think the South can have a special election to replace a delegate that would not start on a Friday. I think it was a principle (if not a right) to let regions administer their elections.
wxtransit:
Quote from: Poirot on February 13, 2018, 10:36:35 PM
I am against the Voting clarification amendment.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]
I prefer to keep the voting period 72 hours that ends at the strike of midnight like it was always. It's a long enough period to vote and adding one minute is not essential.
That being said if there is clarification on voting hours it should be made in the electoral law and not the Bill of Rights in the constitution. There could be consequences in putting voting hours in the bill of Rights. Does this mean no other election at any level can be held except from Friday to Saturday. It's unclear to me if this would also apply to referendums. Would regions be forced to used the same voting calendar for regional elections? I think the South can have a special election to replace a delegate that would not start on a Friday. I think it was a principle (if not a right) to let regions administer their elections.
[/quote]
I believe clarity, not ambiguity, is the best for Atlasia. If you want to believe different, then fine. Just know that you may incite another long, drawn-out TimTurner vs. Peebs, which still leaves the exact result of the Southern election that was held last month outstanding. Read the entire thread and all of the arguments. I think you will find that clarifying far outweighs not clarifying. Maybe adding one minute is not essential, but specifying the second is. Either 00:00:00 or 00:00:59 works, but 00:00 doesn't. That leaves too much open to interpretation.
I, and many other Atlasians, are for the Voting Clarification Amendment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page