March referendum

[Poirot]

I don't know if all is going well but I don't see the federal ballot yet. I would like to see the list of candidates. I don't know how many people are running / by party.

A sample ballot in advance, don't know if it's still the law, helps to correct mistakes or omissions before the election starts.

I see on my regional ballot there is a referendum on a constitutional amendment. I don't know if it was in law but as a notice, explanation and possible debate or questions some days before the referendum starts the proposed amendment had to be put in a thread on the elections board.

[Poirot]

Thanks, I'll go look.

[Poirot]

I found the amendment explanation requirement act.

https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Constitutional_Amendment_Explanation_Requirement_Act

It dates from April 2018. Has there been a reset since and it was not reintroduced or is this still valid.

[Poirot]

I found the amendment explanation requirement act.

https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Constitutional_Amendment_Explanation_Requirement_Act

It dates from April 2018. Has there been a reset since and it was not reintroduced or is this still valid.

I found a reset in 2016. If there were no other after it's on the books. It was written when a bicameral system was in place.

1. The President of Congress shall publicly post the text of any joint resolution of congress proposing to amend the constitution, along with an explanation, in a public thread on the Atlas Fantasy Elections board within 24 hours of the passage of a constitutional amendment. This text shall also include the links to the debate threads in both houses of Congress, in the outer quote box. The explanation must be consistent in the final text passed by both chambers.

When I go on the streets in Atlasia I don't see many things that are indicative of an election. People are not very aware. There are not many logos. Following the recommendation in section 5.2 of the Federal Electoral Act could raise awareness.

https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Federal_Electoral_Act

2. The federal election authority is recommended to give registered voters seven days advance public notice in the Atlas Fantasy Elections board of the hours voting will take place in any federal election. The federal election authority shall post a sample ballot no later than 24 hours prior to the commencement of a federal election.

[Poirot]

Well, I guess I should not vote based on a couple of issues. I was told the left is against the Greenland act lunacy. Peace is against it, Labor against it. (maybe not all members but candidates I could vote for). Then Peace senators start to vote for it or abstain. What is the point on voting on position on a few issues if you can't trust how people will vote. I'm probably too gullible.

[Poirot]

I found the amendment explanation requirement act.

https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php?title=Constitutional_Amendment_Explanation_Requirement_Act

A month later there is still no thread opened for a debate on a federal amendment. The public need to be informed and be able to ask questions or debate. This is the first clause in CAERA.

"This bill is to be titled: Constitutional Amendment Explanation Requirement Act, alternatively known as CAERA.

1. The President of Congress shall publicly post the text of any joint resolution of congress proposing to amend the constitution, along with an explanation, in a public thread on the Atlas Fantasy Elections board within 24 hours of the passage of a constitutional amendment. This text shall also include the links to the debate threads in both houses of Congress, in the outer quote box. The explanation must be consistent in the final text passed by both chamber"

I haven't read the bill in full carefully but I see at least one mistake. I beleive it should be controversies instead of controveries in section 3.2

2. The appellate, concurrent, and discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall, as permitted by law, extend to controveries:

I find it peculiar that a form of term limit is wanted for the judicial system (contrary to most in real life) while there is no term limits for elected officials (contrary to some in real life). Most players are seeking elected political office and if there is a form of term limits I believe it should be established for President or Senators first, not the judicial.

NCYankee has been a big proponent of the independence of the judicial over the years. I feel the new system proposed could lead to more partisanship when a seat become vacant (and it will happen more often). There is an air of partisanship right now in the game and party rivalry could mean a party refuse to vote for someone of another party. I prefer the stability we have now. The court is composed of sort of retired players so the game doesn't lose active players in other offices. They seem to be competent and like in a work contract I feel it's wrong to give the role to people under a set of rules and then change the terms of the contract especially without their approval.

[Poirot]

I have a question on NPC characters and the law. I think I saw a case with NPC character before the court. There is something in the amendment about NPC characters. Does the amendment allow cases involving NPC characters that was not there before?

I find it odd to have NPC characters in court. I find the court is there to solve conflict on interpretation of the law more than be there to solve imaginary conflicts between imaginary people.