SB 110-10: The People Should Decide Amendment (Tabled)

[Spark]

Senate Resolution

To amend the Constitution to require special elections for at-large Senate vacancies.

Be it Resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled, that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the Regions, the constitution shall be amended as follows:

The People Should Decide Amendment

Article III, Section 2, shall read as follows:

Section 2. Elections to the Senate.

The manner of election for at-large Senators shall be as follows:

i. The nine at-large Senators shall be elected for a term of two months by the eligible voters of the Republic according to a method of proportional representation prescribed by the Senate. Elections for the seats shall be held in the months of February, April, June, August, October, and December.

ii. If no other method of proportional representation is prescribed by law, at-large Senate elections shall operate on single transferable vote.

iii. At-large Senate vacancies occuring within thirty days of the next election 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 or of an at-large Senator more than thirty days prior to the next election, then a special election shall be held within twenty days of the vacancy to choose a replacement to serve the remainder of the existing term.

This Constitutional Amendment requires a special election to be held to fill a vacancy in the Senate created by the death, resignation, or removal of an at-large member more than thirty days prior to the next election. This empowers the people of Atlasia rather than corrupt political parties to choose who represents them and prevents candidates from deceptively and unethically running for at-large Senate solely to resign and allow a party to undemocratically install a replacement.

People's and Region's Senate
---

Sponsor: Mr. Reactionary
Status: Debating

The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is an amendment to provide for special elections for vacancies so that a hypothetical candidate wouldnt be able to cravenly run for office, win, and then immediately resign and enable another hypothetical party stooge who is super obnoxious, ill-tempered, corrupt, unpopular, and unable to get elected on his or her own to become a Senator for basically a full term in a blatant slap to democracy. I think this amendment is good because it promotes voting and hurts big party politics.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This immediately runs into the issue that members of the at-large Senate seats represent a segment of the electorate. Replacing appointment with special elections means that their voice gets diluted as everyone else can outvote them, thus leaving them without representation.
Any at-large election needs to have a limited franchise or else it runs headlong into this problem.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This immediately runs into the issue that members of the at-large Senate seats represent a segment of the electorate. Replacing appointment with special elections means that their voice gets diluted as everyone else can outvote them, thus leaving them without representation.
Any at-large election needs to have a limited franchise or else it runs headlong into this problem.

Running in an election with no intent to serve just so you can rig it by immediately secreting in an obnoxious hack who wasnt elected is a bigger hypothetical problem. We vote for candidates, not parties. There is no guarantee that a vote for say Spark would automatically be a vote for DeadPrez. Id rather the people have power over the big parties.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This immediately runs into the issue that members of the at-large Senate seats represent a segment of the electorate. Replacing appointment with special elections means that their voice gets diluted as everyone else can outvote them, thus leaving them without representation.
Any at-large election needs to have a limited franchise or else it runs headlong into this problem.

Running in an election with no intent to serve just so you can rig it by immediately secreting in an obnoxious hack who wasnt elected is a bigger hypothetical problem. We vote for candidates, not parties. There is no guarantee that a vote for say Spark would automatically be a vote for DeadPrez. Id rather the people have power over the big parties.

An at-large election (for Senate level) is fine IF you limit the franchise to those who first-, second-, third-, or fourth-preferenced the outgoing incumbent.

I don't think I agree with the idea that big parties' power is opposed to the people. In fact, big parties represent organized camps FROM the people. Strong parties are an important element of Atlasian democracy and exist as manifestations of the popular will, which is why there is a strong history of strong parties in Atlasia (Jesus Christ Party, Labor Party, Federalist Party, et cetera). Most voters vote on the basis of what party name says on the ballot a majority of the time. You have exceptions, but that's precisely what they are: exceptions, i.e. they aren't the norm.

I've speaking from experience here: I've been involved in Atlasian politics ever since 2015.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This immediately runs into the issue that members of the at-large Senate seats represent a segment of the electorate. Replacing appointment with special elections means that their voice gets diluted as everyone else can outvote them, thus leaving them without representation.
Any at-large election needs to have a limited franchise or else it runs headlong into this problem.

Running in an election with no intent to serve just so you can rig it by immediately secreting in an obnoxious hack who wasnt elected is a bigger hypothetical problem. We vote for candidates, not parties. There is no guarantee that a vote for say Spark would automatically be a vote for DeadPrez. Id rather the people have power over the big parties.

An at-large election (for Senate level) is fine IF you limit the franchise to those who first-, second-, third-, or fourth-preferenced the outgoing incumbent.

I don't think I agree with the idea that big parties' power is opposed to the people. In fact, big parties represent organized camps FROM the people. Strong parties are an important element of Atlasian democracy and exist as manifestations of the popular will, which is why there is a strong history of strong parties in Atlasia (Jesus Christ Party, Labor Party, Federalist Party, et cetera). Most voters vote on the basis of what party name says on the ballot a majority of the time. You have exceptions, but that's precisely what they are: exceptions, i.e. they aren't the norm.

I've speaking from experience here: I've been involved in Atlasian politics ever since 2015.

All I know is someone shouldnt be allowed to run for office simply to win and then not swear in to allow a backroom of partisan cronies to pick what was supposed to be a representative of the people.

[WD]

Clearly a politically motivated retaliatory effort against the Labor Party for the filling of the At-large vacancy created by AFE at the beginning of this session. I’m heavily inclined to oppose this for that reason alone. Tim brings up an excellent point regarding the logistics of holding an At-large special, baring substantial restrictions on the electorate it is very hard to get an accurate and fair pool of voters to fill the vacancy.

[S019]

The reasoning behind pushing this is absurd. It’s very clear that voters in Atlasia vote based on party, not individuals, for the most part. A special election for the whole seat also may not be representative of the outcome that the voters desired in the general election. Say that the at large Senate split 5 left to 4 right, but one of the right wing candidates couldn’t take their seat and then the left narrowly wins the ensuing special, clearly a 6-3 left breakdown is not representative of what the voters wanted. This amendment is not democratic, it is a power grab masquerading as an expansion of democracy. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote this down.

[Devout Centrist]

we have elections every two months...

[Mr. Reactionary]

Looks like the anti-democracy crowd has shown up.

Perhaps a compromise should be that any candidate who runs for office simply to do this should be ineligible to hold any office for a year. Thats more than fair.

 Its outrageous that anyone thinks its ethical to run for an office he or she doesnt intend to serve in just to allow an undemocratic party boss to annoint some hack to rig the People's Senate. These are the People's seats, not the party bosses's seats. This isnt some dumb parliament. We elect candidates, not parties. The People should decide

[Spark]

I see we are coming to a compromise somewhat here. Does anyone wish to offer an amendment to the legislation?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Why should anyone who is appointed to a position in line with established democratic processes be stripped of (maybe half of) their political rights for a whole year? Why should the same be done to those who appoint them?
Why does this sort of thing treat this as a crime when appointment is a normal part of the political process?
Why does this supposedly beat the idea of simply having a special election with a limited franchise?
The claim most people vote for the candidate, not the party, is not generally true either. And strong parties generally are a critical element of a strong democracy.

[Devout Centrist]

Looks like the anti-democracy crowd has shown up.

Perhaps a compromise should be that any candidate who runs for office simply to do this should be ineligible to hold any office for a year. Thats more than fair.

 Its outrageous that anyone thinks its ethical to run for an office he or she doesnt intend to serve in just to allow an undemocratic party boss to annoint some hack to rig the People's Senate. These are the People's seats, not the party bosses's seats. This isnt some dumb parliament. We elect candidates, not parties. The People should decide

What if they resign for personal reasons? Unless there's clear evidence someone ran for office with the intent to resign immediately, I don't see why a ban is necessary.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Looks like the anti-democracy crowd has shown up.

Perhaps a compromise should be that any candidate who runs for office simply to do this should be ineligible to hold any office for a year. Thats more than fair.

 Its outrageous that anyone thinks its ethical to run for an office he or she doesnt intend to serve in just to allow an undemocratic party boss to annoint some hack to rig the People's Senate. These are the People's seats, not the party bosses's seats. This isnt some dumb parliament. We elect candidates, not parties. The People should decide

What if they resign for personal reasons? Unless there's clear evidence someone ran for office with the intent to resign immediately, I don't see why a ban is necessary.

Certaintly intent is relevant. Personal reasons as a reason to resign early are understandable. A hypothetical senator who lets say already has a subregional seat, runs for at large, wins, then declines to take the at large seat while staying in the subregional seat clearly does NOT have a personal reason and can't be said to have acted in good-faith.

This should be somewhat punitive if the goal is to discourage party bosses from rigging the Senate.

[Joseph Cao]

We discussed this before, multiple times actually. Logistically there is no good way to ensure the franchise that elected the vacating congressman is the same one that could elect its successor in a special, and for that reason alone I'm inclined to think the bill as it stands won't work.

The point being disputed is the representation which that congressman's electorate is entitled to. What Yankee did, for example when LT ran for the Senate and vacated his House seat (which is basically the situation here ignoring incumbency concerns), was pledge to appoint someone of the same ideological persuasion to the seat to preserve that representation to the fullest extent possible. S019's hard on for this party-over-people parliamentary wonderland is not borne out at all, there are obviously different wings in Atlasian parties and he of all people is very aware of that. Appointing the neoliberal to replace the Islamoleftist isn't good representation.

[Mr. Reactionary]

We discussed this before, multiple times actually. Logistically there is no good way to ensure the franchise that elected the vacating congressman is the same one that could elect its successor in a special, and for that reason alone I'm inclined to think the bill as it stands won't work.

The point being disputed is the representation which that congressman's electorate is entitled to. What Yankee did, for example when LT ran for the Senate and vacated his House seat (which is basically the situation here ignoring incumbency concerns), was pledge to appoint someone of the same ideological persuasion to the seat to preserve that representation to the fullest extent possible. S019's hard on for this party-over-people parliamentary wonderland is not borne out at all, there are obviously different wings in Atlasian parties and he of all people is very aware of that. Appointing the neoliberal to replace the Islamoleftist isn't good representation.

So I guess that would suggest instead of a special election we opt rather for a punishment mechanism against persons who run fake campaigns to rig elections for party bosses. Tim seems to prefer less than a year for an office holding ban. I think its reasonable. Maybe 6 months and also you cant vote in the next couple of elections?

[WD]

Lmao, an office holding ban and voting ban? This is not a serious proposal.

Motion to table.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lmao, an office holding ban and voting ban? This is not a serious proposal.

Motion to table.

72 hour rule.

[Continential]

Perhaps we could force special elections for people who resign within a week after swearing in.

[SevenEleven]

This is unnecessary.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Perhaps we could force special elections for people who resign within a week after swearing in.

Thats getting reasonable. Id settle for 2 weeks. Thats what 25% of the term?

[WD]

This is unnecessary.

We all know the real reason for this amendment being introduced, the right being mad that a seat won by Labor gets to stay in Labor hands.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I feel like yall would be angry if the right did something similar. I’ll admit that it’s hard to find a good solution here though.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is unnecessary.

We all know the real reason for this amendment being introduced, the right being mad that a seat won by Labor gets to stay in Labor hands.

Whats even the point of running individual candidates if your just gonna take a "the party OWNS that seat" mentality? It's the People's seat not a party's. Maybe the solution is the next highest vote getter wins.

[Joseph Cao]

Voting rights bans are pretty bad, actually.

So I guess that would suggest instead of a special election we opt rather for a punishment mechanism against persons who run fake campaigns to rig elections for party bosses.

There was discussion, I think during the last bill but one that was introduced on this topic, of applying the enforcement mechanism to parties rather than people since it's the party that makes the decision on these things. I forget exactly how that shook out but the other regulations or lack thereof on parties that are still in place might be an indication as to how successful that would be.

Personally I'm all for doing the calling out and tomato throwing on AFE instead of here as seems to have been the case historically, that would be nice for activity as well.

This is unnecessary.

We all know the real reason for this amendment being introduced, the right being mad that a seat won by Labor gets to stay in Labor hands.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not especially ticked off by the left winning seats. I do hold opinions on the arguments that are being made here about "party > representative" which clash pretty strongly with how people get to play the game.