Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Hatman 🍁]

I would like to ask those voting Nay what, exactly, they find objectionable about this amendment.

It's undemocratic

Yet surely each Senator would choose people most alike to themselves politically, meaning that, unless you vote on personality over politics, this candidate would have been your choice if you voted for the departing Senator.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it democratic.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

[Verily]

I would like to ask those voting Nay what, exactly, they find objectionable about this amendment.

It's undemocratic

Yet surely each Senator would choose people most alike to themselves politically, meaning that, unless you vote on personality over politics, this candidate would have been your choice if you voted for the departing Senator.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it democratic.

I seem to recall you opposing the idea of calling a referendum on each bill passed, if requested. How is this different?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here's a possible solution; take into account sitting Senators (does that make sense? I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how clear putting it like that is...)

Bump

[Brandon H]

Here's a possible solution; take into account sitting Senators (does that make sense? I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how clear putting it like that is...)

Bump

As opposed to the senator being replaced, or taking into consideration who is and is no longer in the Senate vs. just the fact that there is a vacancy.
---
A by-election is just as undemocratic, if not more undemocratic than the other methods that have been discussed here.

[minionofmidas]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

[Verily]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

But it isn't as if these are long-term appointments. Some of the term would have already passed, so it's really no different than a Governor appointing a Regional Senator to fill a term now.

[minionofmidas]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

But it isn't as if these are long-term appointments. Some of the term would have already passed, so it's really no different than a Governor appointing a Regional Senator to fill a term now.

Which is bad enough, and is a holdover from US laws. But is not the same as this - naming your own successor is just... well it goes very much against the grain of what democracy is supposed to be about.

[minionofmidas]

Not to mention that this even applies in the case of an impeached etc Senator. The whole matter is that "a vacancy has arisen". Heck, I could name say MissCatholic (when she was still around) as my no.1 successor for the simple reason of scaring the Senate out of expelling me.

This idea just fails at every level.

[Verily]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

But it isn't as if these are long-term appointments. Some of the term would have already passed, so it's really no different than a Governor appointing a Regional Senator to fill a term now.

Which is bad enough, and is a holdover from US laws. But is not the same as this - naming your own successor is just... well it goes very much against the grain of what democracy is supposed to be about.

But the successor isn't anywhere close to permanent, serving only a few months. That doesn't seem undemocratic at all.

Although you do bring up a good point about "threatening" replacements -- I'd prefer a fixed list, myself.

[minionofmidas]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

But it isn't as if these are long-term appointments. Some of the term would have already passed, so it's really no different than a Governor appointing a Regional Senator to fill a term now.

Which is bad enough, and is a holdover from US laws. But is not the same as this - naming your own successor is just... well it goes very much against the grain of what democracy is supposed to be about.

But the successor isn't anywhere close to permanent, serving only a few months. That doesn't seem undemocratic at all.

Well we're only electing people for "only a few months", but I don't think just having the entire Senate appointed by the Chief Justice would be "democratic" to you either, now would it?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As opposed to the senator being replaced, or taking into consideration who is and is no longer in the Senate vs. just the fact that there is a vacancy.

I mean take into consideration during the count.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here's an example;

Five people are elected; two from party A, two from party B and one from party C.

Party C's Senator resigns his seat.

In the by-election, Party A and Party B's seats are taken into account during the count.

Party A's candidate polls 12 votes.
Party B's candidate polls 10 votes.
Party C's candidate polls 5 votes.

As Parties A and B already hold two seats, their votes are divided by three, while Party C (which would currently lack an incumbent Senator) would have its vote divided by one. So:

Party A: 4
Party B: 3
Party C: 5

Party C's candidate holds the seat.

Not perfect (far from it actually), but as a compromise?

[Sam Spade]

Vote is 3-4-1, with Rob and DWTL not voting on this amendment.

[Brandon H]

Here's an example;

Five people are elected; two from party A, two from party B and one from party C.

Party C's Senator resigns his seat.

In the by-election, Party A and Party B's seats are taken into account during the count.

Party A's candidate polls 12 votes.
Party B's candidate polls 10 votes.
Party C's candidate polls 5 votes.

As Parties A and B already hold two seats, their votes are divided by three, while Party C (which would currently lack an incumbent Senator) would have its vote divided by one. So:

Party A: 4
Party B: 3
Party C: 5

Party C's candidate holds the seat.

Not perfect (far from it actually), but as a compromise?

Not perfect, but it would prevent the problem of persons whose first place choice is still in the senate of getting an equal say as those whose first choice was the one who resigned.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Upon further consideration, I'm changing my vote from abstain to nay.

[minionofmidas]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
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.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

[Јas]

Tally on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 3 (Sam; PBrunsel; Brandon)
Nay: 5 (Lewis; Ebowed; Earl; Al; Moderate)
Yet to Vote: 2 (DWTL; Rob)

[Rob]

Nay.

[Јas]

Result on Brandon's Amendment
Aye: 3 (Sam; PBrunsel; Brandon)
Nay: 6 (Lewis; Ebowed; Earl; Al; Moderate; Rob)
Abstain [Didn't Vote]: 1 (DWTL)

The amendment fails.

[Hatman 🍁]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
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.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

[Verily]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
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.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

I don't think the government has any place (or ability) to dictate how the parties can or cannot select their candidates.

[Hatman 🍁]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
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.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

I don't think the government has any place (or ability) to dictate how the parties can or cannot select their candidates.

You mean in principle? If this is the way the Senate feels, then I will oppose Lewis' amendment as well.

[Verily]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
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.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

I don't think the government has any place (or ability) to dictate how the parties can or cannot select their candidates.

You mean in principle? If this is the way the Senate feels, then I will oppose Lewis' amendment as well.

I mean legally. I don't think the government can do that.

[Colin]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
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.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

I don't think the government has any place (or ability) to dictate how the parties can or cannot select their candidates.

You mean in principle? If this is the way the Senate feels, then I will oppose Lewis' amendment as well.

I mean legally. I don't think the government can do that.

Legally it is not within the power of either the Senate or the DoFA to regulate internal party affairs. All that either can regulate is what constitutes a major party and what the benefits of being of such a said party are.