Congressional Discussion Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 05:50:55 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 34587 times)
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 #50 on: May 01, 2018, 10:21:09 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.

I think we should be discerning about dual officeholding. I am rather uncomfortable with the AG holding other offices because he/she could end up in a position of suing himself/herself if a region/branch does something illegal.

We have already discussed Justices in this regards.

At the same time I have long favored the idea of pulling the SoIA/SoS from members of Congress and it would seem rather contradictory in this regards to restrict it at the same time we are discussing off and on parliament proposals. I would note this practice was introduced as part of an amendment called "Semi-Parliamentarism", or something very similar to that. On a similar note, I am hesitant about restrictions being applied to regional officials because of the possibilities for reforms that include Senators also being regional officials. Just like the former, it would amount to a one step forward/one step back kind of situation in terms of reforms.

So essentially I think any changes to dual office holding should be done based on the other institutions and thus change as they change to reflect said reforms and avoid the Constitution becoming a facsimile of the Holy Roman Empire.

I also am fine with someone holding both SoFE/RG and likewise if someone can be active in both roles, I see no problem pulling a cabinet Secretary from a regional legislature.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: May 07, 2018, 07:25:41 PM »
« Edited: May 07, 2018, 07:34:19 PM by Poirot »

I already said my opinion on the censure issue. I will just add suggestions of behaviour from legislators behaving badly for reprimand.(examples taken from a Lincoln assembly special election).

Legislators from outside a region who post in a regional voting booth during or after the election. The posts are not even ballots, they are camapign posts or comments, disguises as ballots but since they are not even from the region it's not a mistake to post there. And in at least one case a post was deleted and another one made later to make the comment in the form of a ballot.

A rule of no campaining in the voting booth is useful for cases like these and not when a real voter writes a word on a ballot.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: May 20, 2018, 09:32:53 PM »

About the proposal for section 8.6 of the Federal electoral act
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure if this is to avoid special elections. If a voter doesn't like someone running for two offices the voter don't have to vote for the candidate. I think once I ran for two offices (maybe it was for assembly and Senate) and did not win, some who voted for me for one did not vote for me for the other.

Running for Governor and Senate or Vice-President would still be allowed so it doesn't stop running for two offices in the game. By forcing people to run for only one office it might decrease the number of candidacies. Some might consider the odds of winning and not try for another office. Let's say a Senator is popular and a House member is tempted to run because nobody else is, odds of winning are not good so sticj to House and might lead to uncompetitive Senate race. Or a Representative accepting to be a Vice-President candidate on a ticket for a very small party so a Presidential candidate can run, logic says he has to refuse. 

Running for two federal offices at the same time is not that common and I don't see it as a major problem.  I also have question with the Senate being a regularly scheduled federal election. It's a federal office with federal law mandating the month of the election but regions set the exact date and the manner to select Senators and regions administer the Senate election.   
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: June 17, 2018, 10:00:43 PM »

I don't want more nuclear energy.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: June 23, 2018, 07:52:37 PM »

The Senate adopted this in the Federal Electoral Act in section 8.6
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I ask the House to remove Senate in that list. When the constitution was written it was decided regions would decide how they elect their Senators and now the federal government is trying to tell regions who is eligible to run for regional Senators. The Senate is supposed to represent regions but it failed to defend regions so I ask the House to remedy the situation.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2018, 08:06:12 PM »

I ask the House to delete section 8.6 of  the Federal Electoral Act passed by the Senate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems pointless to forbid appearing on the ballot for more than one office if you can still run as a write-in candidate. Unless "appear on the ballot" includes write-in canddiate, this clause just make things worst, it pushes poential candiate for more than one office to go underground. I prefer people be upfront about the offices they are seeking. They can take part in a debate. Declared candidates know other opponents and can act and campaign accordingly and not face secret ghost opponent.
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 #56 on: June 23, 2018, 09:30:15 PM »

The other problem is this conflicts with other interpretations by labeling Senate elections as Federal. Including the activity calculus for removing voters from the rolls.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,402
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2018, 09:16:09 AM »

Can we have a discussion about this bill?

I'm fine with certain aspects of this, but not to be a buzzkill, I think letting people register and live in the UK is silly and adds a complicated layer to the game. People living over there can run for office in Atlasia and vote for/enact policies, yet they don't have to pay our taxes and aren't affected by our laws. It's a nice idea but completely unrealistic.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,848
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 29, 2018, 12:59:15 PM »

Can we have a discussion about this bill?

I'm fine with certain aspects of this, but not to be a buzzkill, I think letting people register and live in the UK is silly and adds a complicated layer to the game. People living over there can run for office in Atlasia and vote for/enact policies, yet they don't have to pay our taxes and aren't affected by our laws. It's a nice idea but completely unrealistic.

I have not discussed this with the President and ultimately his view will be what I advocate for as Secretary of State, but presently I would definitely be fine with being a buzzkill on this issue too. Atlasia for Atlasians!
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 #59 on: August 30, 2018, 11:06:42 PM »

I have always regarded it as kind of an "Atlasians abroad type" thing, like the Democrats have for their Primary/caucus process in RL.

Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: December 29, 2018, 05:50:20 PM »

I have reservation with some wording in the Party Organization Act.

Change is required "by vote of a quorum of all members of that party,"

Dfinition of quorum is:
A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons

So by saying "by vote of a quorum of all members of that party" it sounds like to be valid the vote requires all party members to participate and since it's unlikely to happen in big parties, a quorum of all members is almost impossible to achieve.
Logged
Sestak
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,289
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: December 29, 2018, 06:03:59 PM »

I have reservation with some wording in the Party Organization Act.

Change is required "by vote of a quorum of all members of that party,"

Dfinition of quorum is:
A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons

So by saying "by vote of a quorum of all members of that party" it sounds like to be valid the vote requires all party members to participate and since it's unlikely to happen in big parties, a quorum of all members is almost impossible to achieve.

Thanks for pointing this out; I'll alert the House of this so that the necessary change can be amended in.
Logged
Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,451
Norway


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 14, 2019, 07:31:04 PM »

Do I need a confirmation hearing for my appointment to Deputy GM?
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 #63 on: March 14, 2019, 07:49:25 PM »

Do I need a confirmation hearing for my appointment to Deputy GM?

I think so. Encke was.
Logged
Sirius_
Ninja0428
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,119
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.00, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: March 14, 2019, 07:49:34 PM »

Do I need a confirmation hearing for my appointment to Deputy GM?
Yes, this should be brought before the senate soon.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,402
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: March 23, 2019, 11:27:23 PM »

In speaking with the UK's prime minister today and a mutual understanding of a strong relationship between our nations moving forward, I urge a member of Congress to sponsor a bill that would repeal F.L. 2-8: Atlasian-United Kingdom Common Market Agreement.
Logged
AustralianSwingVoter
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,037
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: March 23, 2019, 11:36:11 PM »

In speaking with the UK's prime minister today and a mutual understanding of a strong relationship between our nations moving forward, I urge a member of Congress to sponsor a bill that would repeal F.L. 2-8: Atlasian-United Kingdom Common Market Agreement.

Fantastic News! Finally!
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 #67 on: March 23, 2019, 11:45:54 PM »

I guess it is the logical extension of a more developed and realistic foreign policy simulation, that things like Common Markets are going to be problematic, the anachronistic imposition of a pre-reset function when the idea of a serious and consistent realism from the Game Moderation team was merely a vivid wet dream inside my head.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,882
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: March 24, 2019, 07:09:47 AM »

In speaking with the UK's prime minister today and a mutual understanding of a strong relationship between our nations moving forward, I urge a member of Congress to sponsor a bill that would repeal F.L. 2-8: Atlasian-United Kingdom Common Market Agreement.

So we are going to do Brexit here as well? Tongue
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,402
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: April 12, 2019, 04:45:44 PM »

It has come to my attention by Yankee that under the current constitution, there is no course of action if a president does not sign a bill, it simply remains in limbo until a decision is made. Under the old constitution, if a president didn't sign a law for 7 or 10 days, it would go into effect without their signature. To our knowledge, there is no clause in the current constitution that states that. If I am wrong on that, someone please correct me.

I had planned to do that with the Foreign Animal Products Act; I noted my reservations publicly during the debate but also recognize that it passed unanimously. While I technically could use this loophole to keep the bill from becoming law, it is my hope that Congress looks into rectifying this. In the meantime, I will sign the bill in good faith as there has already been a delay in it's enactment and a veto override would be certain to happen.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2019, 07:42:07 PM »

I don't believe  the Voter Eligibility Reform Act (HB 18-6) is good for the game. It makes it easier for inactive, uninterested or party armies to influence elections. Keeping citizens on the census list even more than six months without voting just inflate the total amount of voters by keeping the dead wood. There is no real penalty to rejoin the game if they wish later anyway. Reducing the 7 days time after registering to have the right to vote makes it easier for parties to build their armies to win an election only a few days away. Having last minute new voters is not desirable.       
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: May 19, 2019, 07:00:33 PM »

I'm not in favor of honoring or giving special recognition to zombies like the proposed Zombie voters are good resolution. Zombie voters exist but I don't think warrant a resolution praising them.

I guess we can have different definitions for zombie voters but I don't agree with the one stated:
Zombie Voters are any voter that does not hold an office in Atlasia but actively votes in Atlasia elections

It's like if you don't hold office you are zombie. Perhaps a better resolution would be to say people who don't hold office but keep following the Atlasia boards are good. For me zombie are more people registered to vote who go to voting booth when proded but otherwise don't follow what is happening are are basically voting machine. I would not say zombies are good.   
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,402
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: June 09, 2019, 07:03:31 PM »

Asking a member of Congress to sponsor this on behalf of the administration.

Quote
Paid Time Off Act

A Bill

To establish federal baselines for requiring businesses to provide paid time off to employees.

Be it enacted in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

Section 1. Definitions
1. Employers - companies that employ 50 or more employees
2. Full-time employee - employees who work a minimum of 40 hours per week.

Section 2. Paid Time Off
1. Effective January 1, 2020, employers shall be required to provide 5 paid vacation days per year to all full-time employees.
2. Effective January 1, 2022, employers shall be required to provide 10 paid vacation days per year to all full-time employees.
3. Employers are permitted and encouraged to exceed these baseline requirements.
4. Regional governments are permitted to increase these baseline requirements in their region
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,525
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: June 13, 2019, 08:36:25 PM »

I'm in the opinion that the None of the above Act is not very desirable. It would require federal ballots to include a None of the above option offered. At least it doesn't make the whole vote invalid if you use rank the None of the above option. On the federal ballot people for House. There are usually many candidates. Surely voters can find one candidate they dislike the least instead of using None of the above. The risk is some will use the None of the above for House to be hostile. They will use it just to rank candidates from another party after the NOTA.

For the President vote there are few candidates so could be used more . Can NOTA really win more votes? Very unlikely so not very useful. People who don't want to vote can stay home or not fill a section of the ballot. There are weeks before the vote, all people who want to run can do so. Many will make efforts with a campaign. One of the candidates willing to hold the office should win and not try to somehat get None of the above to win to block someone from holding office.         
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,882
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: June 14, 2019, 04:56:43 PM »

I'm in the opinion that the None of the above Act is not very desirable. It would require federal ballots to include a None of the above option offered. At least it doesn't make the whole vote invalid if you use rank the None of the above option. On the federal ballot people for House. There are usually many candidates. Surely voters can find one candidate they dislike the least instead of using None of the above. The risk is some will use the None of the above for House to be hostile. They will use it just to rank candidates from another party after the NOTA.

For the President vote there are few candidates so could be used more . Can NOTA really win more votes? Very unlikely so not very useful. People who don't want to vote can stay home or not fill a section of the ballot. There are weeks before the vote, all people who want to run can do so. Many will make efforts with a campaign. One of the candidates willing to hold the office should win and not try to somehat get None of the above to win to block someone from holding office.         

I am of the same opinion. If you really dislike all options, why not write in yourself? Who knows, maybe you could be elected! It's not uncommon in Atlasia for write-ins to win.

The only use I could see for a NOTA option could be in regional elections with very few candidates, where voting NOTA essencially tries to force a new election to expand the legislature or something, and even there it would need more work.
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 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.