SR 106-06: Senate Special Elections Amendment (Tabled)

[Continential]

AN AMENDMENT
To restore at-large Senate special elections

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Senate Special Elections Amendment.

Section 2. Content

1. Section 2, Part 3 of the Fifth Constitution of Atlasia shall be amended to be

iii. At-large Senate vacancies shall be filled through appointment by the executive of the former Senator’s Party; but should a vacancy occur as the result of the death, expulsion, or resignation of an at-large Senator not being a member of a major Party, then a special election that shall be held within twenty days of the vacancy to choose a replacement to serve the remainder of the existing term.

Sponsor: Ishan

The gentleman from Northern Ireland is recognized.

[wxtransit]

Come on, man.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=456152.0

[Continential]

This is an amendment I have pursued before, and I believe that this legislation will help Atlasia.

From what I have seen from lurking old threads, special Senate elections generated activity since everyone, not only the inhabitants of one region or subregion could decide the outcome of the election. Presidential elections produce more turnout and more activity then Midterm elections, which don't have a election where there is only one winner for a national race.

The gist of my argument is that national elections with one winner produce more activity, and Senate special elections have produced activity and some pretty interesting elections. I support and introduced this amendment because I believe that Senate special elections will help make the game more active, which is something this game so desperately needs.

[Continential]

Come on, man.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=456152.0

I am a single issue pro-special elections Senator and a contrarian at heart.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Quoting Senator Yankee's post that ultimately turned me against this amendment, and why I am urging the Senate to reject it now:

I will oppose this proposal. The At-large Senators as a collective group are meant to represent the popular majority, but this is done in 11% increments if that makes sense, which itself ensures that various constituencies and ideologies are represented and have a seat at the decision making table.

The reason why we moved away from the pre-reset setup here was for good reason and that is because it basically ensured that for some months of time, the people who elected a given At-large representative would go unrepresented, by changing the electoral threshold by which that seat is chosen.

11, 11, 11, 51, 11

The basic effect of this is that the same group, same ideology would almost invariably win every special election ever, regardless of which seat they are filling. This would always then distort the distribution of seats in the At-large class, giving that side an extra seat, that would barring a turnout failure usually flip back (or another one in its place) to the people who held it previously.

51% cannot pick a seat that can be won with an 11% subgroup in a normal election, without screwing that sub group out of its representation. This basically turns thus into a power grab as such.

As for why the party chairs do it, there have been mechanism under the current setup, by which parties pick the members for the Chair to appoint through some kind of primary, but more importantly it comes down to timing and efficiency as a complex process could very well break down. Either way that determination should be made by the party bylaws not forced from the top.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yankee from four months ago is right, as he generally is on constitutional matters. Just say no to majoritarian excess!

[Senator-elect Spark]

I oppose this mechanism to rig the game even more.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

nay

[Joseph Cao]

I said this the last time we were debating this bill, for the record:

With all due respect to Ishan and Poirot, I'm not really sure that argument holds water.

Our special elections are a carryover from the USA OTL, where House special elections are held to fill a vacant seat for the remainder of a term. In OTL these elections are held within a district, with a specific electorate which is reasonably close to the electorate that previously elected the dead, expelled, resigning, or incapacitated representative. When we say "will of the people," this is the constituency of people we are referring to. But we use STV for House elections, and there is no guarantee that this OTL property will hold in Atlasia under those conditions. Technically speaking, the same nationwide electorate elected razze and Jessica in December. Their voters are scattered around the country, however, and it is not a given that, in the hypothetical event of a Jessica resignation, Jessica's voters will be the ones getting to decide on a replacement for the representative to whom they previously gave a mandate, even though they are the "people" whose will we wish to gauge. In fact, as things stand, they will always be overridden by razze voters. It is more democratic in the sense that the majority of our electorate would prefer a left-leaning representative to fill a vacancy, and thus a 9-0 House if all nine seats simultaneously required a special election for each seat.

If Lumine's goal is to give voters a direct say over who represents them, and we are referring to the voters who elected the vacating representative, then there is no directly democratic way of satisfying their will – it would be disingenuous to hold an election for them and them only. (Lumine can correct me if my assumption is faulty, of course, though the alternative would seem to be giving the nationwide electorate the final say over who gets elected to a seat that only a fraction of them previously voted on.) In existing situations where the party chair can appoint, statutory law can be modified to enforce an ideologically similar appointment to the vacating representative (as Yankee currently does) so as to preserve the will of the people who elected that representative. If the party chair is also required to explain their decision, so much the better for purposes of transparency.

There is no consistent theoretical basis for electing an at-large senator by one method (STV), with one voter base, and then switching to a different method (FPTP) and different voter base to replace that representative in the event of a vacancy. It does not do the job of making sure those voters are represented, as the goal for special elections ought to be. That is done far better when party chairs can appoint an ideologically similar replacement that preserves the will expressed by those voters.

I would be more convinced if there were some attempt to fix the situation with resigning independents, as that is in fact an actual problem to be solved and one where the House (including myself) collectively faceplanted the last time we had this debate, but judging by his advocacy this does not appear to be a problem for the sponsor.

Similarly, I am not a fan of getting the president to change the legislative composition by fiat. I don't think AGA's analogy is right — the president is a separate branch of the same government. A more accurate comparison would be the governor appointing members of the regional legislature.

Going to have to keep bumping this argument, I see.

[Dr. MB]

This would unnecessarily complicate things. i'll plan to vote against  it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a power grab meant to distort the At-large representation and artificially inflate the representation of the dominant majority for part of a term. It is basically the equivalent of states prior to the 60s, electing two seats At-large while electing the rest via districts like New York did and the whole state of Kentucky did in 1932 (the only time KY had an all D house delegation).

[Joseph Cao]

I want to say this could at least be made less contrary to the spirit of the Constitution but seeing as this is the third time we're going over this, and no arguments have been put forward responding to the serious concerns being raised for the third time, that doesn't seem like a priority for the sponsor or anyone else. Motion to table.

[S019]

I want to say this could at least be made less contrary to the spirit of the Constitution but seeing as this is the third time we're going over this, and no arguments have been put forward responding to the serious concerns being raised for the third time, that doesn't seem like a priority for the sponsor or anyone else. Motion to table.

Seconding

[S019]

Since my seconding motion seems to have been ignored, maybe the table motion expired, in that case I'll submit a motion to table, if the motion didn't expire, ignore this post.

[Saint Milei]

This isn't going to pass. let's just vote on the bill and move on

[Continential]

Well, this bill has been tabled.