SENATE RESOLUTION: The Recall of Senators Amendment (Passed)

[YE]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Regions already probably have the power to recall their senators, though it would need an SC decision to make it clear. This is just codifying it so we don't eventually have a long dragged out SC case over whether or not regions have the power to recall senators under the constitution as currently worded.

No they do not.

I said probably. It is a disputed point of law, and quite frankly it's a shame Lech's recall didn't go to the SC so it could be sorted. The constitution isn't clear whether or not the regions can recall senators, and different people have different opinions on whether or not it is currently constitutional.
At current it is up to the Supreme Court to at some point decide once and for all whether senatorial recalls are constitutional under the current wording.

I haven't seen any reason why they would be.

[Former President tack50]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

To be honest, I don't know.

But since all 3 regional governments are against the bill as ammended; the only option would be the unammended version that already failed to pass the House. If the House is still against it, I guess they can be the ones to vote this ammendment down (again).

Another option could be tabling this. I'm almost tempted to object to my own ammendment just so we get a vote (not doing that yet though).

[AustralianSwingVoter]

This is a new Congress. The House has new members. And a great many people have had a change of heart with regards to this.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

To be honest, I don't know.

But since all 3 regional governments are against the bill as ammended; the only option would be the unammended version that already failed to pass the House. If the House is still against it, I guess they can be the ones to vote this ammendment down (again).

Another option could be tabling this. I'm almost tempted to object to my own amendment just so we get a vote (not doing that yet though).

Also, who's opinion matters more on the question of the recalling of Senators. The opinions of both the Senate, the chamber that this amendment is about, and the Regions, who elect and administer the Senators, or the opinion of the House of Representatives.
The clear solution is not to follow the wishes of the house to the exclusion of all else, given the amendment has precisely nothing to do with them, but to convince the house to support the amendment, given both the Senate and the Regions, the institutions which are affected by this amendment, are so strongly in favour of it.

[windjammer]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

I mean,
I explained why this bill was bad because it would lead to this clause amendment being hijacked by unscrupulous people wanting to maximise the power of their party. I'm an expert on this subject, I invaded the most socially rightwing region and I turned it into a labor stronghold though new registrations.

And I can assure you with this kind of amendment I would have used to maximise even more partisan registration and target senators just for that reason that I would find vulnerable.

I don't see even the point of passing that. The senate expels its inactive senators, why passing that? It's about resolving a problem that doesn't exist.

Passing this kind of legislation is going to create problems beyond your imagination and some new Griffin, new AdamGriffin would easily use that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Actually, the problem here is that we have two Laborites making different arguments, and we are basically going to have to chose between which one to listen to. Truman or Windjammer.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

To be honest, I don't know.

But since all 3 regional governments are against the bill as ammended; the only option would be the unammended version that already failed to pass the House. If the House is still against it, I guess they can be the ones to vote this ammendment down (again).

Another option could be tabling this. I'm almost tempted to object to my own ammendment just so we get a vote (not doing that yet though).

Do we satisfy the house, or do we satisfy the Regional officials who could GOTV this to death?

Do we take the advice of James Madison or do we take the advice of John Marshall?

If this is where we are at on the Recall Amendment, shudder to even think of what is going on in the VP Election thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment S17:08 is adopted with no objections having been entered in the allotted time.

[Former President tack50]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Actually, the problem here is that we have two Laborites making different arguments, and we are basically going to have to chose between which one to listen to. Truman or Windjammer.

While game reform should be one of the least partisan kinds of bills, since both Truman and Windjammer are Laborites, does the other side of the aisle have an opinion on the issue?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Actually, the problem here is that we have two Laborites making different arguments, and we are basically going to have to chose between which one to listen to. Truman or Windjammer.

While game reform should be one of the least partisan kinds of bills, since both Truman and Windjammer are Laborites, does the other side of the aisle have an opinion on the issue?

Though I assume you are wishing for the opines of someone other than myself I will say that I expect the vast majority of Federalists are in strong support of this amendment, as it is a key example of regional rights and the devolution of powers from the federal government to the regions.
In addition, we have always taken the harder and clearer line on activity and recall.

[windjammer]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Actually, the problem here is that we have two Laborites making different arguments, and we are basically going to have to chose between which one to listen to. Truman or Windjammer.

While game reform should be one of the least partisan kinds of bills, since both Truman and Windjammer are Laborites, does the other side of the aisle have an opinion on the issue?

Though I assume you are wishing for the opines of someone other than myself I will say that I expect the vast majority of Federalists are in strong support of this amendment, as it is a key example of regional rights and the devolution of powers from the federal government to the regions.
In addition, we have always taken the harder and clearer line on activity and recall.

So all of this drama is because you want to show how pro activity you are?

[Former President tack50]

This ammendment has nothing to do with activity. It has to do with giving the people a chance to recall their elected officials. As I've said before we should not get a different set of rules for our federal officeholders; or at least not for the Senators.

Even regarding the point about strategic registratgion, remember that recalls are not automatic; a recall can be defeated. And I imagine recalling a sitting senator without a valid reason would be soundly defeated, strategic registration or not; not to mention the possibility of the recalled senator running again in the special election. Not to mention the risks that come with strategic registration.

It's also a good chance to clarify whether or not senators can be recalled (as the question is unclear).

It's quite interesting how the people affected by this ammendment: the governors of the regions; and the Senate; seem to be in favour while the opposition comes from places unaffected by this ammendment.

[Lumine]

I'll share some thoughts on details later as I have time to ponder about this, but in principle I'd like to express my belief that recalls are necessary and important, and we shouldn't shy away from them merely due to the potential for abuse if we take appropriate steps to contain some of such hypothetical dangers. Truman has certainly made a strong case in favor of his approach, which I find most reasonable, and it would be a shame to see the potential for this reform lost if the amendment is tabled.

I get why Regional Executives and others are most concerned about overreach, but at the risk of asking what could be a dumb question: would it be unacceptable to outline that the regions can indeed set their own regulations for recall SO LONG as they fulfill a couple of basic standard requirements? (so as to explicitly forbid certain forms of possible abuse)

At the risk of invoking a history lesson we've had some real major b*stards in the Senate pre-reset and some that weren't quite up to the job post-reset, I don't think we should deny recall or cast it into the realm of unconstitutionality.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Actually, the problem here is that we have two Laborites making different arguments, and we are basically going to have to chose between which one to listen to. Truman or Windjammer.

While game reform should be one of the least partisan kinds of bills, since both Truman and Windjammer are Laborites, does the other side of the aisle have an opinion on the issue?

Well my point was to respond to YE's notion that we were ignoring Windjammer because he was a Laborite.

My instincts tell me that Truman is right and that we should give the discretion to the regions on how to structure them. However, once such has been given I: would certainly encourage the regions to make it difficult to abuse the process.

This was the approach I took in response to the pre-reset 17th Amendment (which did similarly with amendment ratification ie given them discretion on how to do it). The radicals abused it as part of Rimjob in order to create a desire to repeal it and there were several attempts ot repeal it. I pushed the regions to beef up their constitutions and to make them difficult to be hijacked.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll share some thoughts on details later as I have time to ponder about this, but in principle I'd like to express my belief that recalls are necessary and important, and we shouldn't shy away from them merely due to the potential for abuse if we take appropriate steps to contain some of such hypothetical dangers. Truman has certainly made a strong case in favor of his approach, which I find most reasonable, and it would be a shame to see the potential for this reform lost if the amendment is tabled.

I get why Regional Executives and others are most concerned about overreach, but at the risk of asking what could be a dumb question: would it be unacceptable to outline that the regions can indeed set their own regulations for recall SO LONG as they fulfill a couple of basic standard requirements? (so as to explicitly forbid certain forms of possible abuse)

At the risk of invoking a history lesson we've had some real major b*stards in the Senate pre-reset and some that weren't quite up to the job post-reset, I don't think we should deny recall or cast it into the realm of unconstitutionality.

If one goes by the joint letter, the regional executives seem to insist on regional discretion over the details so as to not conflict with the other provisions of the Constitution, which already grants said discretion over how to structure regular Senate elections.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My instincts tell me that Truman is right and that we should give the discretion to the regions on how to structure them. However, once such has been given I: would certainly encourage the regions to make it difficult to abuse the process.

One provision I'd encourage the regions to adopt in the event this passes and is ratified, would be to limit participation in popular recall elections to citizens who were eligible to vote in the last regular election for that seat—thus hopefully avoiding the peril of strategic registration that Windjammer rightly warns of.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My instincts tell me that Truman is right and that we should give the discretion to the regions on how to structure them. However, once such has been given I: would certainly encourage the regions to make it difficult to abuse the process.

One provision I'd encourage the regions to adopt in the event this passes and is ratified, would be to limit participation in popular recall elections to citizens who were eligible to vote in the last regular election for that seat—thus hopefully avoiding the peril of strategic registration that Windjammer rightly warns of.

What does everyone else think of this idea?

[MAINEiac4434]

My instincts tell me that Truman is right and that we should give the discretion to the regions on how to structure them. However, once such has been given I: would certainly encourage the regions to make it difficult to abuse the process.

One provision I'd encourage the regions to adopt in the event this passes and is ratified, would be to limit participation in popular recall elections to citizens who were eligible to vote in the last regular election for that seat—thus hopefully avoiding the peril of strategic registration that Windjammer rightly warns of.

What does everyone else think of this idea?

This is actually a really, really important point. I agree with Truman.

[Sestak]

My instincts tell me that Truman is right and that we should give the discretion to the regions on how to structure them. However, once such has been given I: would certainly encourage the regions to make it difficult to abuse the process.

One provision I'd encourage the regions to adopt in the event this passes and is ratified, would be to limit participation in popular recall elections to citizens who were eligible to vote in the last regular election for that seat—thus hopefully avoiding the peril of strategic registration that Windjammer rightly warns of.

This opens up a bit of a can of worms, though - if you’re going to consider this sort of provision acceptable for special elections, you’re one step away from having it be acceptable to apply it to regular elections as well - establishing a grandfather claus and a permanently fixed voter base. And this sort of provision is, to my understanding, entirely constitutional for the regions to do - there are no restrictions on how they select either their Senators or their own government - making this entirely an issue of what provisions are considered acceptable in the Overton window.

After all, this sort of provision would mean that someone could literally be elected to a second straight full term in their regional legislature and still be ineligible to vote for Senate. Once you’re there...it’s not much of a reach to go even further.


Also, in marginal regions, if Party A has several people fall off the rolls or deregister in the region after a federal election, but also several new registrants, while Party B has fewer people do either, then all of a sudden Party B can initiate a recall with an electorate that is more favorable to them than both the initial electorate that elected the Senator in question and the regions current electorate.

Post-reset Atlasia has thankfully been free of this sort of electorate manipulation by statute, but this already starts doing that and opens the door for even more.

So this approach really causes several other issues to spring up.

[Vern]

My instincts tell me that Truman is right and that we should give the discretion to the regions on how to structure them. However, once such has been given I: would certainly encourage the regions to make it difficult to abuse the process.

One provision I'd encourage the regions to adopt in the event this passes and is ratified, would be to limit participation in popular recall elections to citizens who were eligible to vote in the last regular election for that seat—thus hopefully avoiding the peril of strategic registration that Windjammer rightly warns of.

What does everyone else think of this idea?

This is actually a really, really important point. I agree with Truman.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My instincts tell me that Truman is right and that we should give the discretion to the regions on how to structure them. However, once such has been given I: would certainly encourage the regions to make it difficult to abuse the process.

One provision I'd encourage the regions to adopt in the event this passes and is ratified, would be to limit participation in popular recall elections to citizens who were eligible to vote in the last regular election for that seat—thus hopefully avoiding the peril of strategic registration that Windjammer rightly warns of.

This opens up a bit of a can of worms, though - if you’re going to consider this sort of provision acceptable for special elections, you’re one step away from having it be acceptable to apply it to regular elections as well - establishing a grandfather claus and a permanently fixed voter base. And this sort of provision is, to my understanding, entirely constitutional for the regions to do - there are no restrictions on how they select either their Senators or their own government - making this entirely an issue of what provisions are considered acceptable in the Overton window.

After all, this sort of provision would mean that someone could literally be elected to a second straight full term in their regional legislature and still be ineligible to vote for Senate. Once you’re there...it’s not much of a reach to go even further.


Also, in marginal regions, if Party A has several people fall off the rolls or deregister in the region after a federal election, but also several new registrants, while Party B has fewer people do either, then all of a sudden Party B can initiate a recall with an electorate that is more favorable to them than both the initial electorate that elected the Senator in question and the regions current electorate.

Post-reset Atlasia has thankfully been free of this sort of electorate manipulation by statute, but this already starts doing that and opens the door for even more.

So this approach really causes several other issues to spring up.

Is there any approach here that doesn't cause fire and brimstone, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria?

[Former President tack50]

I fully oppose locking down the recall electorate to those who had the right to vote on the original election for the exact same reasons as jk2020.

I would also add the issue that having to control several electorates for recalls would be very hard for the Registrar General and Secretary of Elections and we should not make their lives harder (especially since they are the same person currently, but even if split it's not a good idea)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

When it comes down to it, you can't have Senatorial recall, and preserve regional control over Senatorial elections, and eliminate all avenues for corruption and abuse. Any system that allows Senators to be removed by the voting public before the expiration of their term is going to be vulnerable to some kind of malpractice, and every solution to every potential line of skullduggery comes with its own caveats. If you want to protect against strategic registration and still allow Senators to be recalled, that means restricting democracy to some extent (whether with a residency requirement, or a threshold, or both, or something else entirely). If you want to prevent strategic registration from changing the composition of the Senate midterm without restricting absolute democracy, you have to give up on Senatorial recall. It's a matter of tradeoffs and priorities.

Personally, I find Sestak's slippery slope argument unconvincing, though people falling off the rolls between a Senator's election and the end of their term is a valid point. In any event, this is a debate I expect will play out in the regional legislatures should Congress pass and the public ratify the original amendment.

I would also add the issue that having to control several electorates for recalls would be very hard for the Registrar General and Secretary of Elections and we should not make their lives harder (especially since they are the same person currently, but even if split it's not a good idea)

I'm not sure I follow this line of argument. It would be up to the regions to enforce their own rules regarding Senatorial recalls, so the RG/SoFE would play no part in seeing this implemented —if one or more regions decided to go this rout.

[Former President tack50]

I would also add the issue that having to control several electorates for recalls would be very hard for the Registrar General and Secretary of Elections and we should not make their lives harder (especially since they are the same person currently, but even if split it's not a good idea)

I'm not sure I follow this line of argument. It would be up to the regions to enforce their own rules regarding Senatorial recalls, so the RG/SoFE would play no part in seeing this implemented —if one or more regions decided to go this rout.

Actually you are right, as you could just use an outdated census (the one closest to the original election). I still think it would be hard to limit the voter pool to those at the original election though and a dumb idea.

If people want to invade a region to recall someone, that's corrupt, but should be possible. And of course it would be up to the regions to decide.

[tmthforu94]

OK where are we at on this?