SR 114-25: Proxy Vote Resolution (Amendment Vote)

[Pyro]

Nay

[Pyro]

I hereby cast a proxy vote of Aye for Senator NC Yankee who has authorized me to do so due to the unfortunate personal circumstances that have befallen him. I believe Senator Yankee would vote for this amendment since it allows the proxy vote for himself which he explicitly asked for in choosing me as a proxy. If he is able to vote on this before the vote closes or if his seat is vacated and he is replaced before the vote closes, please recognize that vote instead, Mr. PPT.

Also, on this bill and any other votes in which I must make a proxy vote, if anyone is aware of public comments of Senator Yankee, on each issue at hand in general, to the contrary to my belief of how he would vote, I would appreciate it if you could let me know so I can change the proxy vote to reflect that.

I do hope that this amendment receives sufficient support without the proxy vote being decisive, though, and I understand if the PPT/Deputy PPT does not want to recognize this vote on this amendment. I just thought it proper to cast a vote for Yankee, even if it goes unrecognized, on this and all other votes to give a full and honest representation of his constituency before this body.

I object to this counting of this proxy vote on the grounds that proxy voting is not sanctioned by the rules of the Senate. If the PPT, or Deputy PPT, wish to count this vote, please ask for the suspension of the rules.

[NewYorkExpress]

Aye.

[West_Midlander]

I object to Pyro's amendment. This seems like an effort to slow this resolution down which will require us to vote on the proxy vote on every bill if this matter cannot be settled quickly.

[West_Midlander]

By the way, I don't know what the final count will be on this but it's 85+% in favor so far regardless of whether you count the proxy vote or not. So I imagine each proxy vote will be able to pass by the required 2/3rds majority if this is not passed in a timely manner but it will be a great inconvenience to all Senators without any gain, especially since no one has an objection to the substance of any of my proxy votes for Senator Yankee and I have made it clear that such criticism on the basis of the Senator's policy positions is more than welcome.

[Pyro]

I object to Pyro's amendment. This seems like an effort to slow this resolution down which will require us to vote on the proxy vote on every bill if this matter cannot be settled quickly.

Do you object to something specific in my proposal? I adopted the concern noted previously by Deputy Wulfric regarding unilateral proxy voting, making sure that supporting evidence of some sort will be required as to avoid exploitation of the proxy vote method.

[West_Midlander]

I object to Pyro's amendment. This seems like an effort to slow this resolution down which will require us to vote on the proxy vote on every bill if this matter cannot be settled quickly.

Do you object to something specific in my proposal? I adopted the concern noted previously by Deputy Wulfric regarding unilateral proxy voting, making sure that supporting evidence of some sort will be required as to avoid exploitation of the proxy vote method.

What exploitation are you talking of? Senators who are forced to take a LOA due to RL circumstances choose their own Senator to act as a proxy. Are you implying that the other party, in any case, should specifically benefit at the personal expense of a Senator in question?

Senators, also, are not going to choose people to vote as a proxy for them who they expect to vote against their stance or in bad faith.

The proposal is in fact concerning since it places an unrealistic burden on Senators who cast a proxy vote in exceptional circumstances. For one, the mechanism for searching this site is not very good, making finding one user's off-hand comment about some issue perhaps impossible to find. Secondly, a Senator's stance could be substantiated from a comment in a private online community, e.g., on Discord, in a situation in which a public stance is not easily found and in which the rules of certain communities may forbid what is effectively "leaking." This, furthermore, applies to communities on the right and left.

It also presents an unfair burden to Senators whose words may be published without their consent, in a way that could misrepresent them in a negative light, in general, which is not fair to the Senator chosen to vote as a proxy or for the unfortunately absent Senator. Everyone should be able to proofread comments that they will be judged on by the nature of those private comments being made public. This, ftr, is not meant to suggest a private vs. public stance in this hypothetical case since the vote itself is public, and the Senator, if present, would have voted that way.

This proposed requirement, meanwhile, only seems necessary if a member of a different party and/or of a far different ideology (i.e., political enemies) were voting as a proxy for a Senator, for example, if such a proxy was designated arbitrarily by the PPT, which would never come to pass.

[Pyro]

I object to Pyro's amendment. This seems like an effort to slow this resolution down which will require us to vote on the proxy vote on every bill if this matter cannot be settled quickly.

Do you object to something specific in my proposal? I adopted the concern noted previously by Deputy Wulfric regarding unilateral proxy voting, making sure that supporting evidence of some sort will be required as to avoid exploitation of the proxy vote method.

What exploitation are you talking of? Senators who are forced to take a LOA due to RL circumstances choose their own Senator to act as a proxy. Are you implying that the other party, in any case, should specifically benefit at the personal expense of a Senator in question?

Senators, also, are not going to choose people to vote as a proxy for them who they expect to vote against their stance or in bad faith.

I'm not sure that I understand. Allowing a member of the senator to act as a proxy-voter is a very serious act, with fairly obvious risks. My proposal is intended to circumvent these risks by ensuring that the proxy-voter shows some sort of evidence that the proxy vote matches the policies of the unavailable senator. Otherwise, yes, it is certainly possible that the proxy-voter could cast a vote that is not in-line with the unavailable senator's preference. I do not find it unreasonable to codify measures to prevent this from taking place.

In addition, if the situation were to call for it, the Senate could suspend the rules as noted in Article 10 of the Senate Rules, and allow a proxy vote that does not necessary meet these conditions.

[West_Midlander]

I object to Pyro's amendment. This seems like an effort to slow this resolution down which will require us to vote on the proxy vote on every bill if this matter cannot be settled quickly.

Do you object to something specific in my proposal? I adopted the concern noted previously by Deputy Wulfric regarding unilateral proxy voting, making sure that supporting evidence of some sort will be required as to avoid exploitation of the proxy vote method.

What exploitation are you talking of? Senators who are forced to take a LOA due to RL circumstances choose their own Senator to act as a proxy. Are you implying that the other party, in any case, should specifically benefit at the personal expense of a Senator in question?

Senators, also, are not going to choose people to vote as a proxy for them who they expect to vote against their stance or in bad faith.

I'm not sure that I understand. Allowing a member of the senator to act as a proxy-voter is a very serious act, with fairly obvious risks. My proposal is intended to circumvent these risks by ensuring that the proxy-voter shows some sort of evidence that the proxy vote matches the policies of the unavailable senator. Otherwise, yes, it is certainly possible that the proxy-voter could cast a vote that is not in-line with the unavailable senator's preference. I do not find it unreasonable to codify measures to prevent this from taking place.

In addition, if the situation were to call for it, the Senate could suspend the rules as noted in Article 10 of the Senate Rules, and allow a proxy vote that does not necessary meet these conditions.

So your solution is to force an additional vote in every case, on cloture, final votes, and amendment votes?

FTR, it is a very serious act. Please re-read my comments since I was editing until after you posted this (if you like).

[Pyro]

The proposal is in fact concerning since it places an unrealistic burden on Senators who cast a proxy vote in exceptional circumstances. For one, the mechanism for searching this site is not very good, making finding one user's off-hand comment about some issue perhaps impossible to find. Secondly, a Senator's stance could be substantiated from a comment in a private online community, e.g., on Discord, in a situation in which a public stance is not easily found and in which the rules of certain communities may forbid what is effectively "leaking." This, furthermore, applies to communities on the right and left.

This is a fair point. We could amend this to disallow comments from external communities like Discord, and stipulate that any communications must only be shared with the consent of the unavailable senator.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye on WestMidlander's amendment.

[West_Midlander]

The proposal is in fact concerning since it places an unrealistic burden on Senators who cast a proxy vote in exceptional circumstances. For one, the mechanism for searching this site is not very good, making finding one user's off-hand comment about some issue perhaps impossible to find. Secondly, a Senator's stance could be substantiated from a comment in a private online community, e.g., on Discord, in a situation in which a public stance is not easily found and in which the rules of certain communities may forbid what is effectively "leaking." This, furthermore, applies to communities on the right and left.

This is a fair point. We could amend this to disallow comments from external communities like Discord.

The proposal, in general, presents an unfair burden on both parties involved especially since veteran users of the site are inherently punished* since the burden is then on the proxy-voter to comb through, in the case of Senator Yankee, up to 2100 pages of posts for a stance since the search function on this site is not that great. For example, quoting terms does not bring back the term but only the individual words in question.

*This is because it would be relatively much easier to find the stance, if available, for a new Senator with just over the minimum requirement of posts, or for any Senators with a few thousand posts only, in comparison to Senator Yankee, for example. Thus, veteran users are under an unfair and unreasonable burden of being disenfranchised when they must be away.

[Pyro]

This proposed requirement, meanwhile, only seems necessary if a member of a different party and/or of a far different ideology (i.e., political enemies) were voting as a proxy for a Senator, for example, if such a proxy was designated arbitrarily by the PPT, which would never come to pass.

I understand what you mean by this, but even political allies could make an error if the unavailable senator's position is not known or ambiguous. You can certainly make the point that Senator Yankee has been involved long enough that many of us know his positions on varying issues (though, still, I would rather proxy votes under this resolution document those positions), but if we're dealing with a new officeholder or forum user, I think it's a murkier situation. Plus, with the recent trend of party switching and such, I think it's safe to say party identification is not as solid as an identifier as it once was.

[West_Midlander]

This proposed requirement, meanwhile, only seems necessary if a member of a different party and/or of a far different ideology (i.e., political enemies) were voting as a proxy for a Senator, for example, if such a proxy was designated arbitrarily by the PPT, which would never come to pass.

I understand what you mean by this, but even political allies could make an error if the unavailable senator's position is not known or ambiguous. You can certainly make the point that Senator Yankee has been involved long enough that many of us know his positions on varying issues (though, still, I would rather proxy votes under this resolution document those positions), but if we're dealing with a new officeholder or forum user, I think it's a murkier situation. Plus, with the recent trend of party switching and such, I think it's safe to say party identification is not as solid as an identifier as it once was.

In my opinion, a brand new user is unlikelier to choose a proxy instead of resigning or simply going MIA instead, especially since they will likely have less close allies and/or know less about the possibility of taking a LOA/protocol in general. I also believe a Senator being represented by a proxy vote with a minimal chance of misrepresentation of their view, which a Senator can at least clear up when s/he returns is better than disenfranchising them to a significant or total extent.

If there were an oversight of the affected Senator's view on the part of the proxy-voter it would be an accidental one occurring very infrequently.

To your point about party, that is why I pointed to ideological similarities as well, and it would be a highly unusual circumstance, anyway, for a user to undergo a party and/or ideological shift just as another Senator (trusted by the proxy-voter) is forced to take a LOA.

[West_Midlander]

Senator Pyro, since your primary concern is about Senators' wishes being misrepresented, please note this part of my amendment (being voted on now):

"The proxy-voting Senator shall also honor any clear statement or implication of the affected Senator's wish to vote a certain way otherwise the proxy vote shall be invalid."

This would mean that if any Senator or the presiding officer uncovers public information contradicting the vote of the proxy-voter, then the vote will not be counted and the resulting overall vote will simply be as if the Senator in question was absent, which would perhaps be more common under your proposed amendment.

[Pyro]

The proposal is in fact concerning since it places an unrealistic burden on Senators who cast a proxy vote in exceptional circumstances. For one, the mechanism for searching this site is not very good, making finding one user's off-hand comment about some issue perhaps impossible to find. Secondly, a Senator's stance could be substantiated from a comment in a private online community, e.g., on Discord, in a situation in which a public stance is not easily found and in which the rules of certain communities may forbid what is effectively "leaking." This, furthermore, applies to communities on the right and left.

This is a fair point. We could amend this to disallow comments from external communities like Discord.

The proposal, in general, presents an unfair burden on both parties involved especially since veteran users of the site are inherently punished* since the burden is then on the proxy-voter to comb through, in the case of Senator Yankee, up to 2100 pages of posts for a stance since the search function on this site is not that great. For example, quoting terms does not bring back the term but only the individual words in question.

*This is because it would be relatively much easier to find the stance, if available, for a new Senator with just over the minimum requirement of posts, or for any Senators with a few thousand posts only, in comparison to Senator Yankee, for example. Thus, veteran users are under an unfair and unreasonable burden of being disenfranchised when they must be away.

I see your viewpoint, but I cannot agree with that. If a proxy-voter is confident in their understanding of the unavailable senator's position, it should not be too much to ask for some sort of evidence to support their claim. Whether it be a prior Atlas post, or a communication (with consent to be shared) noting that position, I think it's only fair to ask that proxy-voters show us what's behind their reasoning before casting their vote.

I also cannot speak to your concerns with the Search functionality, as I successfully manged to use it when tracking down and documenting the complete Lincoln Statute for the Public Library.

Senator Pyro, since your primary concern is about Senators' wishes being misrepresented, please note this part of my amendment (being voted on now):

"The proxy-voting Senator shall also honor any clear statement or implication of the affected Senator's wish to vote a certain way otherwise the proxy vote shall be invalid."

This would mean that if any Senator or the presiding officer uncovers public information contradicting the vote of the proxy-voter, then the vote will not be counted and the resulting overall vote will simply be as if the Senator in question was absent, which would perhaps be more common under your proposed amendment.

I'm glad this line was included in your amendment, however I'm reluctant to say it goes far enough in protecting the unavailable senator. It should not be the job of other senators, nor the PPT, to uncover a contradictory statement in the case of the proxy vote. That responsibility should fall squarely on the proxy-voter to explain themselves when they cast their vote.

[West_Midlander]

The proposal is in fact concerning since it places an unrealistic burden on Senators who cast a proxy vote in exceptional circumstances. For one, the mechanism for searching this site is not very good, making finding one user's off-hand comment about some issue perhaps impossible to find. Secondly, a Senator's stance could be substantiated from a comment in a private online community, e.g., on Discord, in a situation in which a public stance is not easily found and in which the rules of certain communities may forbid what is effectively "leaking." This, furthermore, applies to communities on the right and left.

This is a fair point. We could amend this to disallow comments from external communities like Discord.

The proposal, in general, presents an unfair burden on both parties involved especially since veteran users of the site are inherently punished* since the burden is then on the proxy-voter to comb through, in the case of Senator Yankee, up to 2100 pages of posts for a stance since the search function on this site is not that great. For example, quoting terms does not bring back the term but only the individual words in question.

*This is because it would be relatively much easier to find the stance, if available, for a new Senator with just over the minimum requirement of posts, or for any Senators with a few thousand posts only, in comparison to Senator Yankee, for example. Thus, veteran users are under an unfair and unreasonable burden of being disenfranchised when they must be away.

I see your viewpoint, but I cannot agree with that. If a proxy-voter is confident in their understanding of the unavailable senator's position, it should not be too much to ask for some sort of evidence to support their claim. Whether it be a prior Atlas post, or a communication (with consent to be shared) noting that position, I think it's only fair to ask that proxy-voters show us what's behind their reasoning before casting their vote.

I also cannot speak to your concerns with the Search functionality, as I successfully manged to use it when tracking down and documenting the complete Lincoln Statute for the Public Library.

Senator Pyro, since your primary concern is about Senators' wishes being misrepresented, please note this part of my amendment (being voted on now):

"The proxy-voting Senator shall also honor any clear statement or implication of the affected Senator's wish to vote a certain way otherwise the proxy vote shall be invalid."

This would mean that if any Senator or the presiding officer uncovers public information contradicting the vote of the proxy-voter, then the vote will not be counted and the resulting overall vote will simply be as if the Senator in question was absent, which would perhaps be more common under your proposed amendment.

I'm glad this line was included in your amendment, however I'm reluctant to say it goes far enough in protecting the unavailable senator. It should not be the job of other senators, nor the PPT, to uncover a contradictory statement in the case of the proxy vote. That responsibility should fall squarely on the proxy-voter to explain themselves when they cast their vote.

Is it practical for a Senator who is forced to take a LOA to have to specifically give the proxy-voter individual statements which are OK'd to post if there is not a public statement readily available? I also don't think the process should be made unnecessarily difficult just because it favors one party at this time to do so, in a supposed effort to stem something which may rarely occur if at all (misrepresentation of a Senator's view by a proxy-voter).

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

While I did express the concern regarding knowledge of a senator's views, it is not something that I actually feel can be addressed in this game, for indeed we are not dealing with people that are able to express their thoughts, just not in Washington, but instead a person who is unable to conduct their job at all (albeit through no fault of their own).

The actual solution I would prefer is passing this in the form designated by West Midlander now to specifically cover Yankee's exceptional situation, and then repealing it once Yankee's term has concluded.

[Utah Neolib]

A RESOLUTION
To allow proxy voting in the Senate under limited circumstances

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

Quote
Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Proxy Vote Resolution.

Section 2. Proxy voting

Section 6 of the Official Senate Procedures and Rules for Operation (OSPR) is amended;

Quote
1.) Final Votes and veto overrides votes shall last for a maximum of 4 days (i.e. 96 hours). A final vote may be ended earlier than 96 hours:

a. If the vote has a majority to pass or fail, then the Presiding officer may call 24 hours for Senators to vote or change their votes.

b. If all Senators have voted and the result is unanimous for or against, then the Presiding Officer may end the vote immediately.

2.) If a bill has been vetoed, a Senator has 96 hours to motion for a veto override. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Senate is needed in order to override a veto.

3.) If a redraft is presented, the original sponsor shall have 96 hours after it is offered to accept the redraft or reject it and request an override. If the redraft is rejected by the Senate, the sponsor may then either motion to resume debate on the bill or withdraw the bill from the floor. If the original sponsor shall have left the chamber, the presiding officer shall allow for someone to assume sponsorship as with a normal bill, with the 96 hours commencing after it is completed.

4.) Veto Override and Redraft proceedings shall not be conducted in a slot and thus not subjected to any limits on the amount of legislation on the floor, but shall be conducted in their original threads.

5.) Proxy Votes shall be allowed under circumstances in which a senator has posted a Leave of Absence or similar message of absence and their support for an amendment or bill is implied.

5a. ) Proxy votes shall be allowed under circumstances in which a senator has posted a leave of absence designates a specific senator to cast votes for them.

5b. ) Proxy votes shall be allowed without a designated senator at the discretion of the presiding President pro tempore or deputy President pro tempore.

5c. ) Proxy votes cast by a designated senator can be changed in the following circumstances
 The leave-of-absence senator issuing a post disapproving of the vote by the designated senator.

Abstain on the WM amendment

[West_Midlander]

Senator Utah Neolib, the amendment would remedy the issue at hand, and I would support it if not for two concerns. I am not sure if it's a good idea to allow non-designated proxy voting since this would mean someone who is less aligned with the LOA Senator could vote in their stead. If a Senator is able to make a LOA post, I do not think it a significant hurdle to name a proxy-voter in that post. I am also concerned that 5b could potentially be abused if a corrupt PPT agreed to name a member of his/her party as the proxy and if the Senator could not come online in time to correct those votes, i.e., if a proxy of one party was named by the PPT/Deputy although the absent Senator might be of another party/ideology.

Also, the language should be clarified if the Senator in question can only correct their vote until the vote is closed because otherwise, retroactive vote changes would open a major can of worms.

[Pyro]

Is it practical for a Senator who is forced to take a LOA to have to specifically give the proxy-voter individual statements which are OK'd to post if there is not a public statement readily available? I also don't think the process should be made unnecessarily difficult just because it favors one party at this time to do so, in a supposed effort to stem something which may rarely occur if at all (misrepresentation of a Senator's view by a proxy-voter).

The process should be made as simple as possible, provided we ensure all proxy votes are cast with referential material directing the Senate to the position of the unavailable senator. It's extraordinarily important that if we codify proxy voting, we keep it as fair, secure, and accurate as possible. I will look into an alternative proposal to address this if my existing amendment is not acceptable to you.

[West_Midlander]

Is it practical for a Senator who is forced to take a LOA to have to specifically give the proxy-voter individual statements which are OK'd to post if there is not a public statement readily available? I also don't think the process should be made unnecessarily difficult just because it favors one party at this time to do so, in a supposed effort to stem something which may rarely occur if at all (misrepresentation of a Senator's view by a proxy-voter).

The process should be made as simple as possible, provided we ensure all proxy votes are cast with referential material directing the Senate to the position of the unavailable senator. It's extraordinarily important that if we codify proxy voting, we keep it as fair, secure, and accurate as possible. I will look into an alternative proposal to address this if my existing amendment is not acceptable to you.

If Senator Utah Neolib makes a few changes (potentially), I think his amendment could be a good compromise between our two amendments, especially since he is a non-Fed non-Lab.

[West_Midlander]

I believe we should get to a vote on this ASAP so I withdraw the proxy vote for Senator Yankee on this amendment vote (I have deleted the proxy vote post) as otherwise we may get stuck in an endless loop of objections over proxy votes until the matter is settled.

[NewYorkExpress]

I believe we should get to a vote on this ASAP so I withdraw the proxy vote for Senator Yankee on this amendment vote (I have deleted the proxy vote post) as otherwise we may get stuck in an endless loop of objections over proxy votes until the matter is settled.

It's probably just my opinion, but I think you should do so with all other proxy votes that you have cast to this point, given how unclear the Senate's rules are.

Nothing against Yankee, and I will be voting for this bill no matter what form it ends up in, but it's pretty clear the fight over the proxy votes is overshadowing other legislation.

[West_Midlander]

I believe we should get to a vote on this ASAP so I withdraw the proxy vote for Senator Yankee on this amendment vote (I have deleted the proxy vote post) as otherwise we may get stuck in an endless loop of objections over proxy votes until the matter is settled.

It's probably just my opinion, but I think you should do so with all other proxy votes that you have cast to this point, given how unclear the Senate's rules are.

Nothing against Yankee, and I will be voting for this bill no matter what form it ends up in, but it's pretty clear the fight over the proxy votes is overshadowing other legislation.

The matter is before the Senate now and there seems to be a strong consensus for allowing it. There's no need to dishonor Yankee's legacy and to encourage and allow the tyranny of the minority by bending to the whims of one.