Anti-Zombie Act of 2009 (Law'd)

[MasterJedi]

Anti-Zombie Act of 2009

1. The Senate compels the Secretary of Forum Affairs to conduct a review of the voter roll immediately and remove all voters which do not meet the following conditions:
a) not voted in the past two elections, if applicable or
b) not posted in any of the Atlasia sections 10 or more times in the past two months, if applicable.

2. The Secretary of Forum Affairs shall be responsible to review the voter rolls on a regular basis based on the above conditions.
Spon: Sen. Hashemite

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not really sure I'm crazy about B. Is there really any reason for some people to post in the Atlasia sections of Atlas that often? Adding up all registered voters, that's a fair bit of total posts required.

I'm fine with increasing the overall posts-in-previous-weeks requirements, but I don't think we should mandate posting in Atlasia since Atlasia isn't, quite frankly, worthy of it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm not really sure I'm crazy about B. Is there really any reason for some people to post in the Atlasia sections of Atlas that often? Adding up all registered voters, that's a fair bit of total posts required.

I'm fine with increasing the overall posts-in-previous-weeks requirements, but I don't think we should mandate posting in Atlasia since Atlasia isn't, quite frankly, worthy of it.

     Of course, it is that kind of thinking that causes Atlasia to slump into inactivity between elections & contributes to the zombie voter problem. If everyone checked Atlasia frequently, it would give candidates an actual incentive to run campaigns, as well as help get everyone's voice heard in the discourse of the day. Looking at many polls & discussions, you'd think that Atlasia was a center-right country, but when election time rolls around it suddenly becomes center to center-left.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not really sure I'm crazy about B. Is there really any reason for some people to post in the Atlasia sections of Atlas that often? Adding up all registered voters, that's a fair bit of total posts required.

I'm fine with increasing the overall posts-in-previous-weeks requirements, but I don't think we should mandate posting in Atlasia since Atlasia isn't, quite frankly, worthy of it.

     Of course, it is that kind of thinking that causes Atlasia to slump into inactivity between elections & contributes to the zombie voter problem. If everyone checked Atlasia frequently, it would give candidates an actual incentive to run campaigns, as well as help get everyone's voice heard in the discourse of the day. Looking at many polls & discussions, you'd think that Atlasia was a center-right country, but when election time rolls around it suddenly becomes center to center-left.

We would probably lose half our citizens by enacting this. I'm not really comfortable with either killing Atlasia or encouraging spam posts.

I don't like zombie voters either, but when it comes down to it, there's not alot we can do unless you want Atlasia to be a group of 35 people, they're sort of an unfortunate necessity in many ways. I'm open to more restrictions, but let's make much broader ones, not something like this. (I am, however, totally in support of A)

[Fritz]

During my election, Senator Hashemite accused me of being anti-reform- because he knew I would oppose this.  Yes, I oppose reform, when the reform being proposed moves this country and this game in exactly the wrong direction.

Atlasia is supposed to be an inclusive republic, not an exclusive, elitist club.  We claim to want more voter participation, we claim to want more competitive elections, and this bill does everything it can to inhibit both.  I agree that voters should be required to be active in the Forum, else I could just get all my buddies to sign up and vote for me.  The requirement to have 10 posts in Atlasia places undue hardship on the voters, not to mention the SoFA, and basically guarantees that every national election from now on will end up in court to challenge the validity of this vote or that vote.

What are the arguments in favor of this?  I can't think of any.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I feel really bad about opposing this, honestly, because I really like Hashemite and I know he PMed me awhile back with thoughts on this bill. But I just can't bring myself to support it in current form, I fear it might do too much damage.

[Hash]

he PMed me awhile back with thoughts on this bill.

And you failed to answer me back with your concerns.

I assumed no news, good news, so I counted on your support. Especially since you have railed in the past against zombies. To say the least, I'm a bit deceived.

Atlasia is supposed to be an inclusive republic, not an exclusive, elitist club.

Inclusive, sure. Inclusive club of people who post once in a while and then decide elections? People who sign up, don't give a damn, get a PM to vote for so and so and make so and so win? What are arguments in favour of that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly what this bill does. People will be encouraged to either dump this since they don't care, or actually encouraged to post more often and get involved. And don't give me the "oh, if you're not elected you can't do anything in Atlasia whinewhinewhine" crap. As I told somebody, there's plenty to do. Run for some type of office. Start a media source, caucus, lobby group, whatever. Get a Senator to introduce legislation you want. Participate in debates with candidates or on Senate legislation.

When I joined Atlasia, I didn't have anything to do. But I didn't sit around, getting a PM every 2 months asking me to vote for so and so. I ran for Mideast Lt. Governor and so forth. It's perfectly possible to post 10 Atlasia-related posts in two months.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, poor souls. You really think that people whose only activity in Atlasia is to vote, receive a PM, and vote for such candidate are needed in Atlasia? Yeah, since we have a number of those. On both sides, fwiw.

Anyways, I'm surprised at the opposition this has received, though I'll wait for some other voices to show up before I'm forced to accept a compromise on this. Since I'm not withdrawing this bill.

[Јas]

People who sign up, don't give a damn, get a PM to vote for so and so and make so and so win? What are arguments in favour of that?

The argument is that it is essential to the 2 largest Atlasian parties (and their 6 Senators) to allow them to maintain their standing.

----

I like that you've raised this issue and hope that something can be done. My qualm would be that s.2 places a potentially onorous burden of work on the SoFA.

[Franzl]

I support this in principle...but perhaps we could lower the minimum to 5 or 3? Something a little less draconian.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm pretty skeptical of this, for what it's worth. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that Atlasians aren't posting here all the time, as long as they pay attention and vote often. This is, after all, an election sim, and it wouldn't make sense that all 85 people who voted in the last election are all active in debate and legislation and everything.

[tmthforu94]

I like the basic idea of this act, but I think it's a bit too tough. I would support changing it to only if you miss 2 presidential elections. I mean, let's say someone went on a vacation from mid-June to mid-July. They would miss both the June elections as well as the July special election, and would be eliminated. Maybe it would work better if they had make a public notification of their absence. Then again, what if it's an unexpected absense, like the death of a close relative?
I also think b as too strict, as that would cut Atlasia down to about 35 members, which would be a little boring. I would support changing 2 months to 6 months.

[minionofmidas]

Is this constitutional?

[Bacon King]

The past two elections? Is this just two federal elections, or do regional elections count too? What about special elections? None of this is specified in the bill. Under a reasonable interpretation of this bill, someone could easily find themselves deregistered after a single week away.

I also don't think we should deregister people just because they don't participate much. I've gone a two month period with less than tens posts in Atlasia several times, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean I wasn't paying attention. Some people just prefer to only vote in what is, after all, an election sim.

In addition, I'm also doubtful of this bill's constitutionality, though I haven't actually looked at the relevant sections of the Constitution yet.

But yeah, just my two cents.

[Associate Justice PiT]

People who sign up, don't give a damn, get a PM to vote for so and so and make so and so win? What are arguments in favour of that?

The argument is that it is essential to the 2 largest Atlasian parties (and their 6 Senators) to allow them to maintain their standing.

----

I like that you've raised this issue and hope that something can be done. My qualm would be that s.2 places a potentially onorous burden of work on the SoFA.

     For what it's worth, I'd be perfectly happy to give up any zombie voters my party has if everyone else had to do the same.

I like the basic idea of this act, but I think it's a bit too tough. I would support changing it to only if you miss 2 presidential elections. I mean, let's say someone went on a vacation from mid-June to mid-July. They would miss both the June elections as well as the July special election, and would be eliminated. Maybe it would work better if they had make a public notification of their absence. Then again, what if it's an unexpected absense, like the death of a close relative?
I also think b as too strict, as that would cut Atlasia down to about 35 members, which would be a little boring. I would support changing 2 months to 6 months.

     I imagine that special elections wouldn't count for those purposes. Also, the further back you set the goalposts, the more tedious work you line up for the SoFA.

[Hash]

I'll offer a compromise:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm also thinking of adding a clause about people who take hiatuses/vacations but return afterward, like Bacon King.

[bgwah]

You want people to post more, Hashemite? What, are you tired of viciously harassing DC Cutie and Catmusic? Do you need more victims?

[Hash]

You want people to post more, Hashemite? What, are you tired of viciously harassing DC Cutie and Catmusic? Do you need more victims?

I want to get rid of the zombies that dominate elections, as you well know.

[Peter]

How can it be constitutional to direct the SoFA to purge the rolls where the Constitution directs very explicitly who may be purged? (i.e. those who havent voted in 4 elections)

[Hash]

How can it be constitutional to direct the SoFA to purge the rolls where the Constitution directs very explicitly who may be purged? (i.e. those who havent voted in 4 elections)

I'm ready to change this into a constitutional amendment, Peter.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with forcing people to post in Atlasia at all, really. We would just be encouraging spam and/or killing off citizens by the dozens. I want active people too, Hash, but I don't think we can be too strict with this before we start hurting things.

It's not like we're going to be eliminating people that you dislike or that you would want to eliminate. People like Catmusic, Jewish Conservative, DC_Cutie.. these people post. All you're going to do is kill off people who just like the elections, which I think is a serious mistake.

I almost want to put forward an amendment renaming the bill to "JCP Handicap Act of 2009" but the PPT would strike it as frivolous.

How can it be constitutional to direct the SoFA to purge the rolls where the Constitution directs very explicitly who may be purged? (i.e. those who havent voted in 4 elections)

I'm ready to change this into a constitutional amendment, Peter.

That would very very likely not pass, here or in the regions.

[Hash]

I want active people too, Hash

That's nice. Now, what's your solution?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Contrary to what you think, I don't carry out my life with trolls constantly in the back of my mind. I didn't introduce this bill with the only intention of shooing them off, do you really believe that?

I would appreciate an answer to my previous question: People who sign up, don't give a damn, get a PM to vote for so and so and make so and so win? [aka: 'people who just like the elections'] What are arguments in favour of that? (besides the fact that certain people need them to be elected, of course)

How can it be constitutional to direct the SoFA to purge the rolls where the Constitution directs very explicitly who may be purged? (i.e. those who havent voted in 4 elections)

I'm ready to change this into a constitutional amendment, Peter.

That would very very likely not pass, here or in the regions.

Is anybody open to compromise on this (since I am), or is everybody just happy on shooting this down in a nice manner?

[Peter]

Conducting a thorough search of voters posts over 2 months could be very taxing on officials.

What you are suggesting has been suggested before. Anybody who is of the founding era probably remembers the "Raise the Standards" campaign in late 2004/early 2005 which argued in favour of not only activity requirements for the forum at large (which were eventually adopted) but also a Fantasy elections requirement as well. Its interesting that the more things change, the more they actually stay the same.

Anyway, it was decided that the fantasy elections requirement wouldn't be pursued because if a poster made say 300 posts in 2 months and only a few of these in the fantasy section, it would be a large amount of checking for the SoFA to see that the requisite number were made. If this was needed for several posters, the job would be nigh on impossible.

I do see where you are coming from, but having studied the problem some time ago, I'm afraid your solution won't be workable.

[tmthforu94]

Actually, I support your revised version, and plan on voting for it. It doesn't look like it would pass though. Maybe just change a to " not voted in the past two federal elections, if applicable or"

Actually, I have a question on the amendment. At the end of a), you said "or". I take it that means, as long as you vote in elections, you don't have to make the 5 posts? Because that wouldn't really eliminate the problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that should be "and" at the end instead of "or".

[Hash]

I'm ready to offer an amendment striking the text and replacing it with a repeal of FL 16-4, in an attempt to appeal to the JCP caucus, which, understandably, prefers to camp on their positions. However, I don't want this to be shot down without some reforms and new standards coming out. Whatever the cost.

[Fritz]

I would appreciate an answer to my previous question: People who sign up, don't give a damn, get a PM to vote for so and so and make so and so win? [aka: 'people who just like the elections'] What are arguments in favour of that? (besides the fact that certain people need them to be elected, of course)


Is anybody open to compromise on this (since I am), or is everybody just happy on shooting this down in a nice manner?

The argument in favor is, it creates more competitive elections.  More voters = more competitive = more fun watching the returns come in.

I won't compromise on section B.  I might be okay with increasing the post requirement in the forum overall, but no to any requirement of where those posts have to be.

I don't want to make enemies with you, Hashemite...we strongly disagree on this.  Hopefully there will be points we agree on down the road.