Congressional Discussion Thread

[Poirot]

The Hiuse is voting on the Deregistration Waiting Period Act. Ciizens can revoke a deregistration within seven days.

The Senate has also adopted the Deregistration is for Real Act. In this citizens have 49 hours to revoke a deregistration. You have to wait 30 days after deregistration came into effect (so I guess in total 32 days) to register again.

I prefer the 48 hours waiting period.
What happens to the 30 days to register again in the Deregistration is for real act? Will it be added to the 7 days waiting period in another bill? Maybe it should be changed to 21 or 23 days if there is a 7 days waiting period before coming in effect, to have around 30 days total and not 37 days total before re-registering..

[Poirot]

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.

[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.       

[Poirot]

I am against the Voting clarification amendment.

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.     

[Poirot]

I believe clarity, not ambiguity, is the best for Atlasia. If you want to believe different, then fine.

I believe clarity is best but I don't believe the Bill of Rights of the constitution is the appropriate place to specify the voting hours of elections. For the federal elections it is in the Federal electoral act. I don't see the reason we need to take the voting hours out of the elections act to put it in the bill of rights when a small fix to specify the seconds can be made in the electoral law.

If you put the voting hours in the supreme law of the land it becomes not flexible at all. For example if the booth opens late and the voting hours need to be extended or other special reason, I don't think the election administrator can have discretionary power over the bill of rights who says between what hours posts are considered ballots.

As for the voting hours, I prefer we continue with votes having to be posted before midnight (or 1 am if this can still happen). There has to be a deadline and adding 1 minute to the 72 hours is not neceesary. Just clarify the deadline is exactly midnight without seconds.

[Poirot]

Comments on the House Federal Electoral Act of 2018

For transparency, changes proposed to a current law should be clearli identified, using bold or strike in the text or detailing in text the proposed changes (ex: I added line number 5 in section 5, I changed from 5 to 4 the number of months in section 3)

There is a vague explanation of reducung the missed election clause. That is changing the number of months for missed election from 6 to 4. Four months is missing a Presidential/House election and then missing the folllowing House election. If that happens you can't vote anymore. People will be kicked out quicker. So if we want to retain citizens as much as poosible that is a strange way to do it. 

I stumbled on a change that was not mentioned anywhere. In section 14.6 the number of voters needed to be a major party is increased from 3 to 5. I'm against making it more difficult for small or new parties to have recognition.   

I still don't see the rationale in adding one minute to the voting hours. It has been exactly 72 hours. Just clarify midnight 0 seconds for the closing time if someone could exploit a loophole. No need to go to 72 hours 1 minute of voting time, we have enough time to vote already and 72 hours is a round number.

[Poirot]

Another comment on section 8 of the Federal Electoral Act of 2018

On the candidacy declaration deadline. It is 72 hours before before the commencement of the election or special election. In the previous electoral act it was 24 hours but I think there could have been some modifications more recently to make it 48 or 72 hours. What is the deadline currently and is 72 hours before a special election too much time because sometimes special elections happen very quickly.

Edit: I found the modification that was adopted on the candidacy declaration deadline.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.msg5915084#msg5915084

Right now it is 72 hours before a regular election, 24 hours before a special elections and to withdraw it's 72 hours before the election. 

The new law proposes 72 hours for regular, 72 hours for special election and returns to 24 hours to withdraw.

So two changes there that nobody mentioned. 

[Poirot]

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

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.

[Poirot]

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:

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.

[Poirot]

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. 

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.

[Poirot]

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.   

[Poirot]

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)
   

[Poirot]

I support the Farewell to Vice-President amendment.

[Poirot]

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.

[Poirot]

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

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.

[Poirot]

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.

[Poirot]

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. 

[Poirot]

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.         

[Poirot]

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

[Poirot]

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. 

[Poirot]

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.           

[Poirot]

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.

[Poirot]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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.

[Poirot]

About the proposal for section 8.6 of the Federal electoral act

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.