Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Brandon H]

Should the time frame be 72 hours, or is that too short of period? I think anything longer than a week would be too long.

[Јas]

Should the time frame be 72 hours, or is that too short of period? I think anything longer than a week would be too long.

Yeah, I'd say 72 hours is fine.

BTW, please include provision for the possibility that one runs out of candidates to accept the seat.

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment:

Sections 18 and 19 are replaced as

If a vacancy occurs then the "Countback" Method shall be used: the candidate whose seat has become vacant shall be removed from the ballot and the votes shall be recalculated.

And all following sections shall be renumbered appropriately.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Hatman 🍁]

Nay

[minionofmidas]

Nay

[Ebowed]

Nay

[Brandon H]

Aye

[DownWithTheLeft]

Aye

[Keystone Phil]

Nay

[PBrunsel]

Aye

[Јas]

Tally on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 3 (Brandon; DWTL; PBrunsel)
Nay: 4 (Earl; Lewis; Ebowed; Phil)
Yet to Vote: 3 (Al; Rob; Sam)

[Colin]

I feel that I need to speak on behalf of this reform. Out of all the reforms proposed by the administration this is, in my mind, one of the most needed. While STV is, in my mind, not as good as a simple party list system I think it will give Atlasia the same benefits which include stronger parties, more competitive elections and a new and exciting election procedure. The most important aspect of this bill is the institution of a system that would promote party growth, primaries, and the creation of a unified party system. The huge way of independents and the multitude of small parties, including the party I am currently in, have, in my opinion, reduced the quality of Atlasian elections. While we have always had a strong independent base in Atlasia the huge amount we have now is a symptom of an inactive and unappealing party system. Without a party system you don't have the same tension and the same cohesion in the Senate among party members nor do you have any sort of unified national campaign by the parties to try and see their candidates elected.

While a party list system would have rectified this better, in my opinion, than STV both work to the same end. The creation of a strong party system with primaries and internal debate which help to create a new dynamic for Atlasian politics. I would hope to see a more stable system and a system in which party leaders actually lead parties and mold both support and policy rather than take on another title without doing an work with it.

The second most important consequence of the implementation of Proportional Representation is that we will have a truely competitive race for a Senate seat. Instead of a two or, at most, three way contest for a single-seat district we could now have 7 or 8 people running for 5 seats or even more. Much like a Presidential contest the more candidates that are in the election the greater the amount of choice is for the individual voter. We will do away with unopposed races or elections between two candidates who do not fit what a majority of the voters want. Now voters will be able to choose between a wider array of candidates from around the entire nation rather than one or two from their own district.

Those are the two main reasons for supporting this bill. I see no downsides to a bill that will give us a stronger, more vibrant, and more active party system, I see no cons that could outweigh the possibility of great competition in elections, better satisfaction from the voters, and more exciting elections between a plethora of candidates. It's time to begin to change some of the basic structure of Atlasia in order to ensure that Atlasia remains new, interesting, and fun. If the best game becomes uninteresting after a while unless the gameplay changes, so why don't we take a little risk and try something new; try something that could help to improve Atlasia and give us back a little bit of that spark that gave our early experiences with this nation such a lasting appeal.

[Sam Spade]

Aye on the amendment.

[Јas]

Updated Tally on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 4 (Brandon; DWTL; PBrunsel; Sam)
Nay: 4 (Earl; Lewis; Ebowed; Phil)
Yet to Vote: 2 (Al; Rob)

There are less than 24 hours left to vote on this amendment.

[Democratic Hawk]

Proportional Representation Bill

2. For the purposes of these elections the whole of Atlasia shall be treated as a single electoral constituency.

My first reactions to this Bill was where's the accountability?

I am totally opposed to proportional representation. As a voter in Atlasia, I want to have my own representative, responsible for representing me and I want to be able to hold that individual directly accountable.

Couldn't have put in better myself, Senator

Dave 'Hawk'

[Јas]

Proportional Representation Bill

2. For the purposes of these elections the whole of Atlasia shall be treated as a single electoral constituency.

My first reactions to this Bill was where's the accountability?

I am totally opposed to proportional representation. As a voter in Atlasia, I want to have my own representative, responsible for representing me and I want to be able to hold that individual directly accountable.

Couldn't have put in better myself, Senator

Dave 'Hawk'

You're going to have to help me out here Dave.

I really don't understand this view that a single member constituency representative is any more accountable than a multi-member constituency representative. Both are dependant on their constituents to keep them in office, and so both are accountable to their electorates. This is not a party list system, people who are seeking election will have their names on the ballot papers. If the electorate choose, they may elect or reject that individual - where is accountability lacking?

Of all the changes this bill would make (which I believe are almost all positive), I really don't see how there will be any difference in accountability standards at all.

[Rob]

Nay.

[Democratic Hawk]

You're going to have to help me out here Dave.

I really don't understand this view that a single member constituency representative is any more accountable than a multi-member constituency representative. Both are dependant on their constituents to keep them in office, and so both are accountable to their electorates. This is not a party list system, people who are seeking election will have their names on the ballot papers. If the electorate choose, they may elect or reject that individual - where is accountability lacking?

Of all the changes this bill would make (which I believe are almost all positive), I really don't see how there will be any difference in accountability standards at all.

On reflection, I guess my knee jerk reaction was the very proposition that Atlasia be a single electoral constituency and fault lies with me for not reading it any further

It might have been a good idea if the sponsor of this Bill could have entitled Proportional Representation-STV Bill so as it distinguish it from that putrid party list system method of PR that normally characterises an electoral system based on a single national constituency

However, since the proposed method is STV, should this Bill pass, then I'll find it much less unpalatable than I, initially, thought

Nevertheless, I'll state categorically that I prefer the system as it stands . It's not that everybody's vote doesn't ultimately count should they exercise their right to cast fully preferential, as opposed to exhaustive, ballots. One senator, one district, and an electorate to which he or she is exclusively accountable! I see nothing wrong with that, so why change things?

Dave 'Hawk'

[Јas]

One senator, one district, and an electorate to which he or she is exclusively accountable! I see nothing wrong with that, so why change things?

In short...

The benefits of the proposal, to my mind, include the following:
More Competitive Elections;
More Voter Choice;
Possible Return of Regular Party Primaries;
Ends the Need for Re-Districting;
Retains Regional Representation;
Fewer 'Wasted' Votes...

More comprehensively, I'd refer you to my first post in this thread here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

[Sam Spade]

With 4 votes in favor and 6 against, the amendment has failed.

[Brandon H]

Let me state as of now (unless something similar to the previously failed amendment passes) this bill has my full opposition.

[Јas]

Proposed Amendment:
That the following shall replace sections 18 and 19 of the bill and subsequent sections be re-numbered accordingly.

Vacancies
18. Where a single Class B Senate seat vacancy exists, it shall be filled by 'Countback', wherein the results of the election which filled the seat shall be re-calculated ignoring all preferences cast for the candidate whose position is being filled. The best placed candidate of the re-calculation (hereinafter 'the winner') shall be deemable elected to the vacant seat.

19. The winner on countback must give notice to the Department of Forum Affairs that he will accept the seat within 72 hours of the certification of the result of the above countback method.

20. Should the winner not accept, the votes will be calculated once more per above, ignoring also the votes cast for the winner on countback. The new best placed candidate not elected originally shall now be entitiled to hold the seat on the same conditions as set out above.

21. Wherein no further persons are found to be eligible or wanting of the vacant seat on countback, a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.


I would ask Senator Brandon whether or not this amendment meets with his approval. It would institute Countback as the primary method for vacancy filling until such time as no-one is willing or able to take the seat by that method, in which (likely very rare) circumstance a by-election would be held.

If this is acceptable, I would ask the Senator to formally introduce it.

I would also ask any Sentators who support the bill's broad intentions to vote in favour of the amendment should it be introduced.

[Brandon H]

I still don't like there having to be another election, though if there are no other candidates, it would be necessary. It is an improvement over the current version, so I will sponsor this amendment.

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment:

Proposed Amendment:
That the following shall replace sections 18 and 19 of the bill and subsequent sections be re-numbered accordingly.

Vacancies
18. Where a single Class B Senate seat vacancy exists, it shall be filled by 'Countback', wherein the results of the election which filled the seat shall be re-calculated ignoring all preferences cast for the candidate whose position is being filled. The best placed candidate of the re-calculation (hereinafter 'the winner') shall be deemable elected to the vacant seat.

19. The winner on countback must give notice to the Department of Forum Affairs that he will accept the seat within 72 hours of the certification of the result of the above countback method.

20. Should the winner not accept, the votes will be calculated once more per above, ignoring also the votes cast for the winner on countback. The new best placed candidate not elected originally shall now be entitiled to hold the seat on the same conditions as set out above.

21. Wherein no further persons are found to be eligible or wanting of the vacant seat on countback, a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Nay.