SB 28-10: Special Elections Amendment (FINAL VOTE)

[Mike Thick]

Special Elections Amendment
Section 3 Article 5 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be amended to be
Vacancies in the House of Representatives shall be filled by the executive of the affected Party; should the executive of the affected Party resign at any time between the creation of the vacancy and the appointment of a replacement Representative, or be otherwise unable to fill the vacancy within 72 hours, the Speaker of the House shall fill the seat with a member of the Party of the departing representative. But, should a vacancy occur as the result of the death, expulsion, or resignation of a Representative not being a member of a major Party, then a special election shall be held to choose a replacement to serve the remainder of the existing term.

People's House of Representatives
Passed 6-1-0-2 in the People's House of Representatives Assembled
x SevenEleven

Sponsor: Yankee
Status: Final Vote

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Motion to sponsor.

[Mike Thick]

Motion to sponsor.

24 hours to object.

[Mike Thick]

Motion to sponsor.

24 hours to object.

Seeing no objections, Blair is recognized as sponsor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is the point of this to create a backup in case their is a lapse in party leadership?

Also in the past I recall some parties have opted to hold internal votes on who is appointed and these could naturally take longer than 72 hours.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also this would be SR 28-10. 6 is CCC bill. I put the list of numbers right above the VP noticeboard for a reason.

[Former President tack50]

Is the point of this to create a backup in case their is a lapse in party leadership?

Also in the past I recall some parties have opted to hold internal votes on who is appointed and these could naturally take longer than 72 hours.

If I am not mistaken this originally started as a Poirot introduced bill in the House to replace party appointments with special elections.

It eventually was amended and watered down to this, whose objective is to basically prevent what the Labor party did to the Greens back in August.

As for the internal votes thing, maybe we should change "72 hours" with one week or something. Then again, if there is no leadership or the leadership is super inactive, I don't think the party in question would be in a position to have an election for the House vacancy

[Blair]

Would a grandfather clause be needed in terms of party membership?

If for example the federalist executive collasped under the current rules I could join the party for 10 minutes, get appointed and then switch back.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I understand poirot's objective but for my interpretation of the House, replacing a Representative elected by 10% with one elected by 51% creates problematic issues with constituent representation.

There were times pre-reset where the right lost all of its at-large representation simply because of a resignation always leading to a special election and always being won by the JCP when in an open all seat election, such a shut out never happened after mid 2008.

[Continential]

This shouldn't really be called the Special Elections Amendment as that's not the purpose.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Motion to sponsor.

24 hours to object.

Seeing no objections, Blair is recognized as sponsor.

My name is not Blair.

I am sponsoring this so that we can prevent shenanigans like we saw with the destruction of the Green Party. While the wisdom of the founding members was questionable to say the least, the exit of its leaders enabled members of an opposing party to hijack it for political gain. While you can argue that Labor, as the predominant left party, had a moral right to do so, a group of center or far-right posters could have easily done the exact same thing. I do not believe that the events of August should serve as precedent for future similar cases.

I understand poirot's objective but for my interpretation of the House, replacing a Representative elected by 10% with one elected by 51% creates problematic issues with constituent representation.

There were times pre-reset where the right lost all of its at-large representation simply because of a resignation always leading to a special election and always being won by the JCP when in an open all seat election, such a shut out never happened after mid 2008.

This is a fair argument, but what would you suggest as an alternative to preventing future abuse?

[Mike Thick]

Noted, Blair Scott

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Motion to sponsor.

24 hours to object.

Seeing no objections, Blair is recognized as sponsor.

My name is not Blair.

I am sponsoring this so that we can prevent shenanigans like we saw with the destruction of the Green Party. While the wisdom of the founding members was questionable to say the least, the exit of its leaders enabled members of an opposing party to hijack it for political gain. While you can argue that Labor, as the predominant left party, had a moral right to do so, a group of center or far-right posters could have easily done the exact same thing. I do not believe that the events of August should serve as precedent for future similar cases.

I understand poirot's objective but for my interpretation of the House, replacing a Representative elected by 10% with one elected by 51% creates problematic issues with constituent representation.

There were times pre-reset where the right lost all of its at-large representation simply because of a resignation always leading to a special election and always being won by the JCP when in an open all seat election, such a shut out never happened after mid 2008.

This is a fair argument, but what would you suggest as an alternative to preventing future abuse?

The argument is pedantic since poirot's language is gone, but were it remaining I would say it is throwing out the baby with the bath water. We have had one incidence of hijacking and even then it was one lefty replacing another though obviously party allegiance/loyalty/hostility was a factor there beyond ideology.

If we went back to pre-reset, the successor to Poirot would always be Tack or Ted. The successor to Jessica would be tack or Ted. The successor to Joseph Cao would be Tack or Ted. And the Liberals that elected Poirot for a full term would go without representation, the so cons that elected Jessica likewise, the center righties who elected Cao would likewise. A 51% special election is not going to produce representation for the 10% that elected the departing individual and it will create a unrepresentative house that would likely never be elected as such in a regular general election.

Now obviously if a party were steal a seat that produces the same effect but we have only had one instance of that happening in almost 5 years with this setup, compared to pre-reset where that happened 90% of the time via special election.

The current text at least realizes that counterproductive nature.

I am not against having the Speaker as a backup, but I would say lengthen the period. It takes time to get people to respond and in my situation my IRL problems is prolonging the process. Plus in the Feds, we have the VC who theoretically could and should be empowered to make important decisions when I am unable to.

Finally, there is a risk of a party switcher here so I would also suggest a minimum period of registration with the party in question.

Also the name should be changed as Ishan said.

[Continential]

There should be a new sponsor given that Scott resigned.

[Mike Thick]

There should be a new sponsor given that Scott resigned.

Yeah . Anyone want to step up?

[Poirot]

And the Liberals that elected Poirot for a full term would go without representation

It's for the remainder of the term not the full term, and it's on the elected representative to stay for the full term. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And the Liberals that elected Poirot for a full term would go without representation

It's for the remainder of the term not the full term, and it's on the elected representative to stay for the full term. 

Full is inclusive to the partial portion, Poirot. Yes it is on the representative to stay but it is also a fact that the people who voted for you, voted for you not whoever labor or 2017 Feds can get to 51% in head to head election and deserve similar representation to you for the duration of that term in its totality.

[Poirot]

The people who elected a politician didn't vote for the handpicked replacement either, not just the elected replacement afterwards.

You seem to think people who get elected represent individual ideology or specific representation. But when you look at House results for example, the candidates from a party most often end up with the same of votes because the party will channel votes to the candidate most in need of votes near the end. Votes tend to be equal. So the candidates are not elected to represent a special portion of the electorate represented by one candidate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The people who elected a politician didn't vote for the handpicked replacement either, not just the elected replacement afterwards.

The people who elected them would certainly object if say The South and Fremont ganged up to replace the Senator who represented Lincoln. Why should Labor or the Feds be able to pick your replacement.

You seem to think people who get elected represent individual ideology or specific representation. But when you look at House results for example, the candidates from a party most often end up with the same of votes because the party will channel votes to the candidate most in need of votes near the end. Votes tend to be equal. So the candidates are not elected to represent a special portion of the electorate represented by one candidate.

If that were the case, you wouldn't be here and I can tell you barring extreme circumstances you wouldn't stand a chance in hell of winning 51% nationwide unless a major party decided to back you. The same goes for Jessica and the same goes for say PSOL or an anti-Laborite lefty.

Are their generic representatives for whom "all votes are equal" like most anyone on the labor slate and some of the time with Feds, sure. But the very fact that the multi-seat at-large system yields the ability for niche representatives like you to make it through, is illustrative of my point and also that such would not be possible with a 51% threshold like it is for 11% as it is now.

There is a reason why we abandoned the pre-reset system, and that is because of what happened almost EVERY TIME a special was held for an at-large seat, and that is you end up with a unrepresentative chamber that cannot hold up in the next election. There were notable exceptions to this, both of the main ones are from 2014 when Lumine and Spiral won and that is only because the Feds and particularly myself were on board and determined to move heaven and earth to make sure both got through to prevent a flip in the chamber that would not have been yielded by a normal election during the prior prior to after October 2014, when the right took a dive off Niagara falls.

51% should not be able to replace an officer elected by an 11% niche.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also it is worth pointing out that the Feds did for years maintain coherent ideological blocks to back their House members and I strained efforts unto this day to ensure that their replacements matched them ideologically, even going outside the Feds to appoint an indy that would be a better match to the departing Federalist in 2016. I went to Muaddib this time precisely because he has the most similar politics to Jessica for someone not currently tied down without also needing to advantage or disadvantage the non incumbent candidates. The only time I deviated from this was based on option availability.

So I have gone out of my way to try and respect elected representatives views when making the appointment and I have made far more of these appointments than anyone else.

[Blair]

Someone will correct me but I actually ran & won an at-large House race; I can't remember when it was but I ran because I was one of the people in Labor most likely to do well in an at-large election which required someone who knew how to do a campaign & who had won swing voters- that's the reality of what a special election would be, both parties would nag/draft the more senior players to run.

The current system in my view is not fully broken- for that reason I won't be taking up sponsorship of this bill too!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will motion to assume sponsorship, Senators have 24 hours to object.

At the very least I want to change the darn name.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Seeing no objection, I am now sponsor.

I will be offering an amendment correcting a couple of things tomorrow, maybe tonight when I get home but that is dicey based on past exhaustion levels and pain upon returning home.

[Mike Thick]

Seeing no objection, I am now sponsor.

I will be offering an amendment correcting a couple of things tomorrow, maybe tonight when I get home but that is dicey based on past exhaustion levels and pain upon returning home.

If you want to just TLDR your concerns, I can draft an amendment

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not against having the Speaker as a backup, but I would say lengthen the period. It takes time to get people to respond and in my situation my IRL problems is prolonging the process. Plus in the Feds, we have the VC who theoretically could and should be empowered to make important decisions when I am unable to.

Finally, there is a risk of a party switcher here so I would also suggest a minimum period of registration with the party in question.


Also the name should be changed as Ishan said.