Congressional Discussion Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 05:33:39 PM
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)
  Congressional Discussion Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Congressional Discussion Thread  (Read 34585 times)
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2018, 02:47:55 PM »

I made this comment on the concession clause in the House thread about the Federal Electoral Act.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does the Secretary certify it. Could the Secretary refuse a concession?
Also I don't think someone could withdraw a concession. You concede or not. If you are not sure you wait and think about it.
Why not require the concession to be made in the Secreatary of elections office to be official so there is no confusion if someone makes a comment in a chat or in an unofficial results thread.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2018, 03:46:44 PM »

I've asked the House who is debating the Federal Electoral Act why the sentence on campaigning in the voting booth was deleted in section 1.7

This is the text of the 2016 law with the second sentence that was removed:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe this issue was incorporated in another law or in the constitution so it's doubling legislation (but the editing rule is in the constitution and it's still in section 1.7).  Maybe it is difficult to define camapigning and apply that part. Enquiring minds want to know.
Logged
wxtransit
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,105


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2018, 04:04:34 PM »

I've asked the House who is debating the Federal Electoral Act why the sentence on campaigning in the voting booth was deleted in section 1.7

This is the text of the 2016 law with the second sentence that was removed:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe this issue was incorporated in another law or in the constitution so it's doubling legislation (but the editing rule is in the constitution and it's still in section 1.7).  Maybe it is difficult to define camapigning and apply that part. Enquiring minds want to know.

Enquiring minds have already been informed as to why. Tongue

Also, this change was made in an earlier revision, not this one.

You should consider running for the House if you like it so much. Wink
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2018, 10:46:13 PM »

I look at the wiki version of the law and the change made a few months in section 8 for candidacy deadline. The proposed new version again makes changes to section 8. Is there a version of the act with other changes since it was adopted available?

The answer to the campaigning in the voting booth was that the Supreme Court basically said it was unenforceable.

In its ruling delivered in January 2017 in Bacon King vs SoFE, the Court says it depends of the interpretation of the elections officer. 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=250373.msg5459766#msg5459766

I'm afraid if there is no camapigning rule anywhere (assuming there is no text on this anywhere else) it gives the green light for people to campaign in the voting booth and that is not desirable. With the no campaigning allowed sentence it serves as a warning and gives a tool to the SoFE in case some start to write something like Vote for C because.... directly on a ballot to act, reject a ballot, make it stop. There must be a mention somewhere in the statutes of the country to avoid a free for all in the voting booth.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2018, 04:07:26 AM »

If I recall correctly, the ability to regulate campaigning in the voting booth was extracted out of the voting Rights Amendment by the Senate.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2018, 10:14:01 PM »

If I recall correctly, the ability to regulate campaigning in the voting booth was extracted out of the voting Rights Amendment by the Senate.

I think I get it now. Reasons for not counting a vote have to be in the Bill of Rights section 4 because of the formulation No citizen shall be denied the right to vote except...
So having a no campaigning in the voting booth rule in the Federal electoral act could be ruled as only be a statute and the Bill of Rights has more power.

I remember suggesting changing the formulation Citizen can't be denied the right to vote except so we don't need to enumerate everywhere possible case in the Bill of Rights. Or we could have just put can't be denied the right to vote if the voter and vote follow all laws and regulations.   
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2018, 10:28:31 PM »

The changes proposed by the original sponsor of the new Federal Electoral Act amomg other things:

Reduces the time before being able to move to a new region (section 14.3)
chage registration from one region to another region once every 120 days (previously was 180 days)

Reduces the missed election clause (section 14.4)
citizen is deregistered if fails to vote in elections for 4 months (previously was 6 months)

Establishes a procedure for political parties to expel members (section 14.7)

Reduces lame duck session (section 15.3)
elected candidates take office first Friday after the election (previously was federal officeholders take office the first Friday in the month after their election)
   
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2018, 04:09:04 PM »

I support the Farewell to Vice-President amendment.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,728
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2018, 04:21:12 PM »

I support the Farewell to Vice-President amendment.

Thank you, Poirot, I appreciate that. Approval does seem rather unlikely, but at the very least I want to hear convincing reasons as to why the Vice-Presidency should exist.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2018, 10:09:54 PM »

I find it preferable to eliminate a position if the main role is to be a coordinator (vice-president), give his duties in Congress to one or more legislators than eliminate a legislative office who should participate in debate.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2018, 05:44:25 PM »

I have a question on the Dual officeholding amendment. This is the text:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Would this apply only to federal offices (it says under this constitution i.e. federal) or cover also regional offices (in regional constitutions)?
I'm asking if regions will be allowed to have dual officeholding for example, assemblyperson and Lt. Governor, Governor and election administrator, assemblyperson and Speaker.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,139


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2018, 06:13:56 PM »

I have a question on the Dual officeholding amendment. This is the text:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]

Would this apply only to federal offices (it says under this constitution i.e. federal) or cover also regional offices (in regional constitutions)?
I'm asking if regions will be allowed to have dual officeholding for example, assemblyperson and Lt. Governor, Governor and election administrator, assemblyperson and Speaker.
[/quote]
The amendment reads, "under this Constitution," so presumably it does not apply to those elected to an office or offices created by the regions. At least, that is how I interpret it.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2018, 10:09:40 PM »

hum, so maybe with "under this constitution" could still let someone have a federal office and a regional office at the same time.

Or the federal constitution is above the regional ones and the federal level mostly bans dual officeholding so for both levels.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2018, 10:14:53 PM »

Wasn't there a congress special session held on mibbit one time? I want to see how the votes were reported back on the boards. Maybe the log was posted. How can I find the bill(s) in question ? Were special rules adopted for this to be done. 
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,728
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2018, 10:35:32 PM »

hum, so maybe with "under this constitution" could still let someone have a federal office and a regional office at the same time.

Or the federal constitution is above the regional ones and the federal level mostly bans dual officeholding so for both levels.

Thanks for bringing this up, Poirot! In retrospect it is an issue in which I should have placed greater emphasis, as the Amendment is meant to prevent regional officers from also having federal office as well. It should be noted the Amendment asserts "offices under this Constitution" indeed, and the Constitution in Article II, Section 1 mentions " officers of its government" (regarding the regions), so I would certainly consider it as applying to those.

However, an exception I did fail to account for is that of being Speaker or Election Administrator, and I will certainly request the House (as it looks like the Amendment will pass the Senate) to pass an amendment to account for these regional offices to prevent what would be going too far in terms of a multiple office ban. But to me it remains clear that regional officeholders should not have federal office unless in the exceptions currently cited.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2018, 10:59:12 PM »

I hope a region's choice to have a Lieutenant Governor who is also member of assembly can be respected. It's better than forcing to have another player needed to fill that role.

Also if members of assembly hold title like Treasure Secretary or Education Secretary to reflect their interest in bills to be proposed would not be forbidden.

I find it more important to have federal officers who can concentrate on their main job rather than have two when they have trouble being engaged in one than stopping a region from organizing itself and trying to have fun the way it can.

I would prefer if it was more strict for the federal level (legislators not serving in Cabinet) and less strict on regions.         
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2018, 03:45:46 AM »

Wasn't there a congress special session held on mibbit one time? I want to see how the votes were reported back on the boards. Maybe the log was posted. How can I find the bill(s) in question ? Were special rules adopted for this to be done. 


It was in December 2016, right after Christmas I think.


The best one to ask would be Peebs, who was the only sitting member of the House who was present at that time. Also Truman might have been present also.

3rd Congress Noticeboard (contains rest of the member list)
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=254309.0

Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,139


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2018, 03:55:10 PM »

Wasn't there a congress special session held on mibbit one time? I want to see how the votes were reported back on the boards. Maybe the log was posted. How can I find the bill(s) in question ? Were special rules adopted for this to be done. 


It was in December 2016, right after Christmas I think.


The best one to ask would be Peebs, who was the only sitting member of the House who was present at that time. Also Truman might have been present also.

3rd Congress Noticeboard (contains rest of the member list)
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=254309.0
I was indeed present; and yes, if I remember correctly, the Speaker at the time (NeverAgain) suspended the rules to allow debate and votes to happen in real time on Mibbit.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,139


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2018, 04:59:39 PM »

It's also worth noting that the Dual Officeholding Amendment would bar regional officials from serving in the Cabinet if Lumine's interpretation is correct (which, for the record, I don't think it is that the federal Constitution acknowledges the existence of regional offices does not constitute those offices being established federally).
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2018, 04:32:27 PM »

With the information given here on the dpeacial session held on mibbit, I was able to locate the Joint Session of Congress thread:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=255511.0

And in this thread there is a link to the transcript log of what happened there:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=255511.msg5452631#msg5452631
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2018, 09:55:59 PM »

On the Federal Electoral Act of 2018:

I am no grammarian but the presence of a capital D in Deregister in the last sentence of section 14.3 is very suspect.

I reported this in the changes to federal electoral act thread in the elections board:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=287313.msg6115669#msg6115669

Also there was the issue of consistency on voting hours. If it is changed in section 15, it could be change in section 3 and 5.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=283403.msg6088711#msg6088711

Not sure if it was forgotten or decided not to change those sections. 
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2018, 08:43:26 PM »

I had this to say on the Senate Censure resoltion

Really? Criterias like ethics and behaviour can be very are subjective. This can turn into fake trials, influenced by popularity and partisanship, double standard. The Senate should spend its time reading and improving bills (clearly not doing it enough) rather than try to police everyone and risk go on witchhunt.

Big no from me.

About Senate reading and improving bills. This comes mostly from a frustration at the process with the federal electoral act of 2018. The changes from the previous act were never clearly listed. So I tried to make a list of the changes I encoutered without even reading the entire bill.
There were many changes but not much debate. Everyone is magically for it. Someone wants to change something. Everyone is magically for it. It took at least three times of bringing an issue before someone tried to fix the problem (and it was LouisvilleThunder by the way). So I'm not sure how much elected officials have paid attention to bills. Maybe they have too many things goign at once to focus. It sits there for a long time without anything happening. It's super slow.

When it passes maybe some day we will find some change we have not spotted. And this is after people have many times criticized the current electoral act as not good or bad. Yet when it is time to deal with this, legislators don't seem interested. The public was not interested either. The SofE wasn't asked to offer an opinion or gave an opinion on the changes.

As for the censure motion, it goes in the worrying direction lately of vigilante politics. I've always detested trying to punish or exclude players like with trials unless they hurt the game very badly. The censure is trying to police behaviour. It can be very elastic what is acceptable or not. If you adopt this I hope people are censured if they use a adjective to demean or insult a citizen or elected official, censure for those who post in another political party uninvited to speak badly of them or make fun of them, censure people who go attack a candidate in their camapign thread. All behaviour I find not good conduct and unacceptable and often happen.

It just adds to the mob mentality. I thought Atlasia was better than try to police and punish people.           
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,118
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2018, 02:23:42 AM »

When it passes maybe some day we will find some change we have not spotted. And this is after people have many times criticized the current electoral act as not good or bad. Yet when it is time to deal with this, legislators don't seem interested. The public was not interested either. The SofE wasn't asked to offer an opinion or gave an opinion on the changes.      

The SoFE happens to be a sitting member of Congress, who is "asked" to participate on every bill by virtue of being a Representative. Also the PMs I send it her three, four some times five times a week, with links included to make it that much easier. Same goes for all the other members by the way. 
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2018, 04:57:00 PM »

There is a proposal in the Senate about the federal electoral act That I think removes the minimum activity requirement to be eligible to vote. Minimum activty has existed for as long as I remember and I think the number of posts was higher before the current number. I imagine activity is a way to discourage people to get votes from people that are not really on the forum and come on the site when they are asked to vote in fantasy election. With no minimum activity there is no defense against zombie voter. Maybe the number of posts could be reduced to eight in eight weeks (once a week) or five but total elimination seems dangerous.

The House doesn't seem to like the Dual office amendment. Allowing dual office holding in a period of low participation can be a short term solution but if for years you need players to hold many offices at the same time tham it's a sign the game is designed with too many offices. Dual officeholding should be kept at strict minimum (like combining RG and SoFE) and players stick to playing one role at a time.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 01, 2018, 08:05:59 PM »

I looked at activity requirements history and before the requirement was 10 posts it was 15 or 25 posts.

My source is the notes in the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Consolidated_Electoral_System_Reform_Act
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  
« previous next »
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 0.054 seconds with 13 queries.