L.C. 10.19 - Third Lincoln Constitution

[YE]

Wait why the four month legislature? That’s longer than a House term!

Longer terms allow for the session to be more productive

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Wait why the four month legislature? That’s longer than a House term!

Regional Terms being longer than Federal House terms seems to be the usual practice. Per: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=301334.msg7865550#msg7865550

House: 2 Months
Fremont: 3 Months
South: 3 Months
Lincoln (under current constitution): 3 months

[YE]

As for the length of terms, shorter terms make more sense at the regional levels because regional legislatures are primarily dominated by younger players and this have more turnover. Such a large term would lead to a lot of specials due to the fact like half of new players vacate their seats after a month or so.

Also you people move way too fast on amendments, especially for something so important and I think that reflects poorly on the Speaker. Rushing through legislation leads to sloppily done and poorly thought out legislation.

[YE]

Wait why the four month legislature? That’s longer than a House term!

Regional Terms being longer than Federal House terms seems to be the usual practice. Per: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=301334.msg7865550#msg7865550

House: 2 Months
Fremont: 3 Months
South: 3 Months
Lincoln (under current constitution): 3 months

Yeah I worded that poorly. Should have said as long as a Senate term.

[KaiserDave]

4 months is a BIG no

Please get this out

Highest urging

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If people want a straight 3 month term for everything that would be okay with me. I'm still open to 4 month/3 month system as well but people seemed to be against that idea.

There does seem to be consensus that 2 months for leg is too short.

[S019]

Wait why the four month legislature? That’s longer than a House term!

Longer terms allow for the session to be more productive

That makes no sense whatsoever.

It allows for the legislature to get more done in a session, and no region has 2 month terms anyways, so are Fremont and the South wrong for having longer terms than the House?

[AGA]

I want 2 months.

[S019]

The amendment raising it to 4 passed the Council, the term length should be a settled issue. But yes, it's very clear it's either 3 or 4.

[YE]

Honestly I agree with AGA earlier in this thread regarding why off-month elections aka 3 month terms are bad but that’s not for me to decide. The real answer here is a principle non-binding vote.

Also think twice before falling in love with 7 person legislators. Historically they aren’t any more efficient than 5 person ones.

[Pericles]

Ok I'm recommending 2 months over 3. 4 months is still fine by me but I guess it is now DOA. 3 months must be avoided though, we want high turnout elections so that the Council has a mandate from the people.

EDIT: Four months would be workable ONLY if Lincoln adopts a Southern-style appointment system. This would be fair since special elections are almost always lower turnout than general elections, and by avoiding wild fluctuations in party composition the legislature would be able to move forward on a clear agenda.

[YE]

Wait why the four month legislature? That’s longer than a House term!

Longer terms allow for the session to be more productive

That makes no sense whatsoever.

It allows for the legislature to get more done in a session, and no region has 2 month terms anyways, so are Fremont and the South wrong for having longer terms than the House?

Yes, Fremont and the South have it wrong.

Why does getting more done in a session matter though if there are twice as many sessions in a calendar year?

[S019]

Wait why the four month legislature? That’s longer than a House term!

Longer terms allow for the session to be more productive

That makes no sense whatsoever.

It allows for the legislature to get more done in a session, and no region has 2 month terms anyways, so are Fremont and the South wrong for having longer terms than the House?

Yes, Fremont and the South have it wrong.

Why does getting more done in a session matter though if there are twice as many sessions in a calendar year?

I really don't understand the need for frequent elections, 3 months or 4 months is fine.

[KaiserDave]

4 months is not acceptable

[YE]

Wait why the four month legislature? That’s longer than a House term!

Longer terms allow for the session to be more productive

That makes no sense whatsoever.

It allows for the legislature to get more done in a session, and no region has 2 month terms anyways, so are Fremont and the South wrong for having longer terms than the House?

Yes, Fremont and the South have it wrong.

Why does getting more done in a session matter though if there are twice as many sessions in a calendar year?

I really don't understand the need for frequent elections, 3 months or 4 months is fine.

I mean we have regional Senate elections every 2 months so unless you want to change that, I don’t see the problem here.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Also think twice before falling in love with 7 person legislators. Historically they aren’t any more efficient than 5 person ones.

The 7 person thing only applies when you have 9+ on ballot candidates, just like the present. I don't think it's wise to change that, particularly given the current level of interest in the office (10 candidates + an 11th who was willing to run if needed), for this election. When the number of candidates is below 9, it goes down to 5.

Also - on senate - bit different with 2 months there because only half the chamber is up at one time.

[KaiserDave]

I want to see an amendment on these terms. 4 months is not acceptable.

[S019]

I want to see an amendment on these terms. 4 months is not acceptable.

The only alternative which has enough support is 3. Unless you want to bump it up to 6, the votes do not exist for 2 months.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Lincolnites, please mark your preference between these:

[ ] 2 Months for legislature
[ ] 3 Months for legislature

This is not a binding vote. Trying to see what the consensus is.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I want to see an amendment on these terms. 4 months is not acceptable.

The only alternative which has enough support is 3. Unless you want to bump it up to 6, the votes do not exist for 2 months.

If it comes to it, I'll vote for 2 months. Would prefer not to, but it's negotiable.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Lincolnites, please mark your preference between these:

[ ] 2 Months for legislature
[ x] 3 Months for legislature

This is not a binding vote. Trying to see what the consensus is.

[YE]

Also think twice before falling in love with 7 person legislators. Historically they aren’t any more efficient than 5 person ones.

The 7 person thing only applies when you have 9+ on ballot candidates, just like the present. I don't think it's wise to change that, particularly given the current level of interest in the office (10 candidates + an 11th who was willing to run if needed), for this election. When the number of candidates is below 9, it goes down to 5.

Also - on senate - bit different with 2 months there because only half the chamber is up at one time.

Yeah that’s true regarding the 7 member thing but don’t assume bigger is better is my general point.

The Senate being different due to half of it being up at a time has nothing to do with what I said. S019 said two months is too frequent which makes little sense because the voting booth is open every 2 months anyway due to a Senate election.

[KaiserDave]

Lincolnites, please mark your preference between these:

[ x] 2 Months for legislature
[ ] 3 Months for legislature

This is not a binding vote. Trying to see what the consensus is.

I'd prefer 2 but I'll support 3. #Never4

[AGA]

[X] 2 Months for legislature
[ ] 3 Months for legislature

[S019]

The cowardice shown by this chamber today is alarming. This is a day that will live in infamy in our region, a victory for the gun lobby over the common man, fueled by dishonest attacks that changing a far right wing interpretation of gun rights written by rich, white men 300 years ago, who also believed slavery should be legal and that women shouldn't vote is a poison pill? The amendment was merely meant to bring the interpretation of gun rights into a modern era, over time we changed our views on race and on gender, and guess what it didn't destroy the nation like some thought! Now we have the same textualist arguments arising again, fearing change. To those who voted with the NRA today, ask yourself, what will your children and grandchildren think when they read about this in the history books. Was the constitution meant to be a 300 year old rag collecting dust? Or, was it meant to be a living document, meant to change with the times. Let it be known, that while we failed today, our movement remains alive, our fight for the victims of those who lost their lives to gun violence lives on. And let it be clear, we will not stop until no person dies from gun violence.



Also since I'm here I will vote anyways:

1. 3 months
2. Write-In: 4 months
3. Write-In: 2 months is too short, the insistence on it is ridiculous
4. Write-In: Clinging to the words of 300 year old white slaveowners is not cool