Mideast Assembly Thread

[tmthforu94]

Then we should bring the Lt. Governor position back. That is a spot that usually goes to the Lt. Governor. I don't see why we don't have one. Barnes has shown that Lt. Governor's can be very active, and make a difference in their region.

[HappyWarrior]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

[tmthforu94]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

But, what is we had an assemblyman on vacation? Then we'd have to hold the bill up. I don't really agree with "forcing" someone to vote "Aye" or "Nay". If we do that, why don't we just ban voting "Abstain" all together?
Bring back the Lt. Governor position. It's the easiest option.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

I agree.  Although separation of powers really isn't at stake here.  Either the governor votes in favor of it, and signs it and it passes, or he doesn't vote for it, and it doesn't pass, and obviously it wouldn't have passed a veto override anyway.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

I agree.  Although separation of powers really isn't at stake here.  Either the governor votes in favor of it, and signs it and it passes, or he doesn't vote for it, and it doesn't pass, and obviously it wouldn't have passed a veto override anyway.

Yep that was my thinking as well. It's really up to the Governor at that point anyway as he'll end up making a decission to weather he shall sign it or not, so he might as well be able to break the tie when he's at it anyway.

Although I see your concern HW. My plan B would be to have the people vote by referendum when the Assembly ends up in a tie. Although I think that would be to do a simple thing overly complicated.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to force someone to make up their mind, and have them vote either Aye or Nay. And to make it so that a proposal fails automaticly if there's a tie, will make an Abstain vote a Nay in everything but the name. 

[HappyWarrior]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

I agree.  Although separation of powers really isn't at stake here.  Either the governor votes in favor of it, and signs it and it passes, or he doesn't vote for it, and it doesn't pass, and obviously it wouldn't have passed a veto override anyway.

Yep that was my thinking as well. It's really up to the Governor at that point anyway as he'll end up making a decission to weather he shall sign it or not, so he might as well be able to break the tie when he's at it anyway.

Although I see your concern HW. My plan B would be to have the people vote by referendum when the Assembly ends up in a tie. Although I think that would be to do a simple thing overly complicated.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to force someone to make up their mind, and have them vote either Aye or Nay. And to make it so that a proposal fails automaticly if there's a tie, will make an Abstain vote a Nay in everything but the name. 

I like the referendum idea.

[Badger]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

I agree.  Although separation of powers really isn't at stake here.  Either the governor votes in favor of it, and signs it and it passes, or he doesn't vote for it, and it doesn't pass, and obviously it wouldn't have passed a veto override anyway.

Yep that was my thinking as well. It's really up to the Governor at that point anyway as he'll end up making a decission to weather he shall sign it or not, so he might as well be able to break the tie when he's at it anyway.

Although I see your concern HW. My plan B would be to have the people vote by referendum when the Assembly ends up in a tie. Although I think that would be to do a simple thing overly complicated.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to force someone to make up their mind, and have them vote either Aye or Nay. And to make it so that a proposal fails automatically if there's a tie, will make an Abstain vote a Nay in everything but the name. 

I like the referendum idea.

Hmmm...... A mandatory referendum when the vote is tied? Citizens already can propose a referendum on a matter with 25% of registered voters' support, so I'm not sure about this plan. Tell me, SC, what do you believe would be the advantage of a tie assembly vote going to referendum automatically as opposed to allowing a fourth of registered voters to petition it on the ballot?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

I agree.  Although separation of powers really isn't at stake here.  Either the governor votes in favor of it, and signs it and it passes, or he doesn't vote for it, and it doesn't pass, and obviously it wouldn't have passed a veto override anyway.

Yep that was my thinking as well. It's really up to the Governor at that point anyway as he'll end up making a decission to weather he shall sign it or not, so he might as well be able to break the tie when he's at it anyway.

Although I see your concern HW. My plan B would be to have the people vote by referendum when the Assembly ends up in a tie. Although I think that would be to do a simple thing overly complicated.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to force someone to make up their mind, and have them vote either Aye or Nay. And to make it so that a proposal fails automatically if there's a tie, will make an Abstain vote a Nay in everything but the name. 

I like the referendum idea.

Hmmm...... A mandatory referendum when the vote is tied? Citizens already can propose a referendum on a matter with 25% of registered voters' support, so I'm not sure about this plan. Tell me, SC, what do you believe would be the advantage of a tie assembly vote going to referendum automatically as opposed to allowing a fourth of registered voters to petition it on the ballot?

Maybe you guys just need a bigger Assembly. 5 is a good number.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

I agree.  Although separation of powers really isn't at stake here.  Either the governor votes in favor of it, and signs it and it passes, or he doesn't vote for it, and it doesn't pass, and obviously it wouldn't have passed a veto override anyway.

Yep that was my thinking as well. It's really up to the Governor at that point anyway as he'll end up making a decission to weather he shall sign it or not, so he might as well be able to break the tie when he's at it anyway.

Although I see your concern HW. My plan B would be to have the people vote by referendum when the Assembly ends up in a tie. Although I think that would be to do a simple thing overly complicated.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to force someone to make up their mind, and have them vote either Aye or Nay. And to make it so that a proposal fails automaticly if there's a tie, will make an Abstain vote a Nay in everything but the name. 

That could easily be abused.  Take this example: Controversial Bill 1234 is supported by 2 assemblymen, and perhaps a majority of the people but opposed by the Governor.  One Assemblyman forces a tie so that the bill is sent to the people, bypassing the Governor because the Assembly wouldn't override his veto.

[big bad fab]

The problem is, indeed, to have only 3 assemblymen.
5 is indeed a good number: it remains manageable, it remains easy to find 5 Atlasians ready to work in the Assembly and it makes ties far, far less likely.

I'd be ready to agree on 5 assemblymen but only with a change in our electoral system.
The problem is, I won't be able to make a proposal on this in the days to come.

If my fellow assemblymen think we should approve a constitutional amendment on this subject quickly, it would be better to reinstate a Lt. Governor, nominated by the Governor and with a confirmation vote by the Assembly. Indeed, we need a "consensus" man, precisely able to break a tie in a clever manner and after having tried to reach an agreement with everybody.

If we do not think we need to decide quickly on the subject (and I don't think we need, as few bills were recently blocked by a tied situation), I'll soon propose to create 2 more assemblymen and I'll propose a new electoral system.

Any idea of a referendum to break a tie must be rejected. The Assembly is already the people's will in legislative matters. And our Governor's remark is right.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

25 % of all  the Regions registered members are not a small number. So it's not the most simple thing to get that many posters to sign a petention for it be put on a ballot. I know it was done whith the latest Abortion Statue, but besides that I haven't heard of someting ever getting enough support to be put up for a vote. 

My thinking on the referendum idea was that, well if the Assembly can't make up their mind, we should ask the people who they're representing what they think.

As I said though, I think that might be to make something as simple as a tie overly complicated, and would therefore prefer if we just allowed the Governor to break a tie.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I didn't think of that, but you are indeed correct that it could be troublesome, if it's abused in the manner which you described. In light of this I'll really have to reconsider if it's a good idea after all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two Ayes, two Nays, and one Abstain is as likely as one Aye, one Nay, and one Abstain. The Senate, with their ten members, far more often tie on an issue than we do in the Assembly. So I don't think the seize of the Assembly will have much effect.

I wouldn't be entierly opposed to growing the Assembly with one or two more seats, although I have my reservation. I believe that is an entierly different question though, which deserves it's own proposal and its own time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally I don't really see the need for a Lt. Governor. There was a reason we got rid of this office in the first place. The very few responsibilities that Lt. Governors usually have in other regions is here held by the Speaker. Thus the only function he'd have is to break ties, and although I think it's important we get clerification on how to handle ties, they still only happen as often as snow in Mississippi. So we'd have an entire political office, who'd just exist to break a tie once or twice a year.

Besides, if the Lt. is nominated by the Governor, he will most likely have the same oppinion on most issues as him. And even if they would disagree, the Governor would just veto the legislation if it passed, so the result would still be the same as if we simply gave the power to the Governor himself.

I'm open to hearing more arguments in favour of the Lt. Governorship though.

PS: Nice to see some lively debate taking place here again

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since there has been no  debate on this issue for 24 hours I call for a vote on this bill.

[big bad fab]

MIDEAST DRUNK DRIVING REFORM BILL

1) The minimum fine for a first conviction under the existing Mideast DUI Statute is hereby raised to $500. The minimum fine for any second or more conviction under the Mideast DUI Statute is hereby raised to $1000.

2) After lawful arrest for DUI and proper request by a peace officer pursuant to Mideast law for chemical testing of the arrestee's breath, blood or urine, refusal by the arrestee to submit to chemical testing as requested is punishable by law.

3) The degree of offense and minimum and maximum penalties for violation of section 2 above shall be equivalent to penalties for violation of the Mideast DUI Statute, as they're outlined by section 1 of this bill.

4) To the extent that the degree of offense and minimum and maximum penalties are determined by the defendant's number of prior convictions, prior convictions of this statute and/or the Mideast DUI Statute are considered "prior convictions" for enhancing penalties for both this statute and the Mideast DUI Statute.

5) Prosecution or conviction under this statute does not preclude prosecution or conviction under the Mideast DUI Statute arising out of a single incident, but sentence may not be imposed for both offenses out of any one single incident.[/quote]


AYE

[big bad fab]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

25 % of all  the Regions registered members are not a small number. So it's not the most simple thing to get that many posters to sign a petention for it be put on a ballot. I know it was done whith the latest Abortion Statue, but besides that I haven't heard of someting ever getting enough support to be put up for a vote. 

My thinking on the referendum idea was that, well if the Assembly can't make up their mind, we should ask the people who they're representing what they think.

As I said though, I think that might be to make something as simple as a tie overly complicated, and would therefore prefer if we just allowed the Governor to break a tie. 

My thinking is that, if the Assembly can't make up its mind, that's because the idea isn't "mature" and the bill should wait.
Referendum are for big subjects, for constitutional and Rights issues, even for emergency situations, not for "usual" legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I didn't think of that, but you are indeed correct that it could be troublesome, if it's abused in the manner which you described. In light of this I'll really have to reconsider if it's a good idea after all.

This remark is indeed a big one and that's why I don't agree with your proposal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two Ayes, two Nays, and one Abstain is as likely as one Aye, one Nay, and one Abstain. The Senate, with their ten members, far more often tie on an issue than we do in the Assembly. So I don't think the seize of the Assembly will have much effect.

I wouldn't be entierly opposed to growing the Assembly with one or two more seats, although I have my reservation. I believe that is an entierly different question though, which deserves it's own proposal and its own time.

Statistically, with 5, you have lesser risks to have a tie... But, you're right, contrarian examples are numerous. And, well, you may say that 7 is better than 5, etc.
I think 5 is a good compromise between a manageable assembly and a more representative assembly.

Nevertheless, I didn't intend to propose such a change very soon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Personally I don't really see the need for a Lt. Governor. There was a reason we got rid of this office in the first place. The very few responsibilities that Lt. Governors usually have in other regions is here held by the Speaker. Thus the only function he'd have is to break ties, and although I think it's important we get clerification on how to handle ties, they still only happen as often as snow in Mississippi. So we'd have an entire political office, who'd just exist to break a tie once or twice a year.

Besides, if the Lt. is nominated by the Governor, he will most likely have the same oppinion on most issues as him. And even if they would disagree, the Governor would just veto the legislation if it passed, so the result would still be the same as if we simply gave the power to the Governor himself.

I'm open to hearing more arguments in favour of the Lt. Governorship though.

PS: Nice to see some lively debate taking place here again

The Lt. Gov. would be nominated by the Gov. but confirmed by the assembly. So, they wouldn't be just "bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet". But, of course, he could be chosen by the universal suffrage.

The Lt. Gov. would replace the Gov. in case of vacation or even small leaves of absence. I haven't been here for a long time, but I'm sure the problem has arisen even in the Mideast region and even with our current great Governor.

The Lt. Gov. could be in charge of gathering information for the Assembly when in debate and of periodically assessing legislation.

He could be in charge to follow national legislation, to see which must be transposed or adapted in the region.
He could be in charge to update the Wiki pages on the Mideast, or at least to help the Governor in doing it (especially the Statute pages).

I haven't intended to start a big debate or a big reform on this, but such an office could be made easily useful.

[Badger]

RE: DUI Reform Bill Vote:

AYE.

[Purple State]

We abolished the position of Lt. Governor for a reason. I would rather see it remain dead until there is a clear need and a much higher level of activity than we currently have. Creating more positions simply reduces competitive elections, which is really the point of the game.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

To go back on the tie breaker / referendum idea...I think it'd be acceptable if you give the Governor the option to veto the bill.

[Badger]

I personally think that either the third assemblyman must make a choice or the bill simply fail on that basis.  This solution I think would give too much power to the Governor.  We must preserve seperation of powers.

I agree.  Although separation of powers really isn't at stake here.  Either the governor votes in favor of it, and signs it and it passes, or he doesn't vote for it, and it doesn't pass, and obviously it wouldn't have passed a veto override anyway.

But it does notably increase the power of the governor in that he could then get a bill he supports passed without 2 aye votes. I believe that is unnecessary and unstabilizes the balance between assembly and governor.

I think bringing back the Lt. Governor position is the epitome of adding a fifth wheel to a car. Let's get much more active before considering refounding a position who's only official duties would be to break ties.

[Badger]

To go back on the tie breaker / referendum idea...I think it'd be acceptable if you give the Governor the option to veto the bill.

By "option to veto the bill" do you mean the power to prevent the bill from being submitted for referendum after a tied assembly vote?

[Purple State]

A tied vote should fail. A vote of 1 Aye, 1 Nay and 1 Abstain is the equivalent of 1 Aye and 2 Nay in that case, but if a bill cannot garner majority support it shouldn't pass. I believe that was the logic in place when we removed the position of Lt. Governor.

[Хahar 🤔]

"bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet"

More people need to use this expression.

[Purple State]

"bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet"

More people need to use this expression.

A quick google tells me I have no idea what that means. Although from BBF's context I imagine it has something to do with "doing something for the sake of doing it."

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since there has been no  debate on this issue for 24 hours I call for a vote on this bill.

  Aye

The Ayes have it. The bill is transmitted to the Governor's office for his signature or veto.

 

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I have been pondering the referendum idea, and I think Inks is right that it could be very easily abused, and since no one else seem to be that enthustiastic about it either, I think we should scratch that idea.

Since most peopel don't seem that happy about giving the Governor the power either, I believe that leaves us with the following opptions:

a) Give the power to break a tie to our Regional Senator, which was something I thought of yesterday that could work.

b) A tie means the proposal automaticly fails (this is how it is now)

c) We recreate the office of Lt. Governor.

As I've said, I'm not a huge fan of either b) or c)

We abolished the position of Lt. Governor for a reason. I would rather see it remain dead until there is a clear need and a much higher level of activity than we currently have. Creating more positions simply reduces competitive elections, which is really the point of the game.

 ^^^ This pretty well sums up my view on the Lt. Governor issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That problem does indeed happen in the Mideast too. Instead of a Lt Governor however, here most of the powers and duties of the Governorship are transferred to the Speaker. So incase Inks would leave for vaccation, I'd be in charge until his return.

[big bad fab]

"bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet"

More people need to use this expression.

A quick google tells me I have no idea what that means. Although from BBF's context I imagine it has something to do with "doing something for the sake of doing it."

Sorry. It means that two things, two persons, are the same thing, the same person or would have the same consequences, the same policies, despite seeming to be different or even opposed.

The communist candidate said that about Pompidou and Poher in 1969 French presidential election. In the run-off there were only the centre-right and the gaullist candidates. So, for the PCF, this was equally evil and they abstain or vote blank.


Anyway, Sweedish, your a) idea must be discussed, but I don't think that's a good one, as our regional Senator is elected to deal with national matters, after a strictly political election, with national stakes.

b) pleases me, because it means that a bill should be widely supported to pass and that's a way to oblige us to seek consensus.
And, well, 5 assemblymen would be better: if it's 2 ayes, 1 no, 2 abstain for example .

Sorry for being a bit inactive, but family, gardening, wood (and woods...), wines and food make me busy this week-end again .
I'll be back on Monday with some proposals.


BTW, Badger, do you want me to post some amendments to my Public Procurement Policy Bill or do you still intend to put some forward ?