Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Hatman 🍁]

STV sucks. Damn you Irish and your silly system. Nonetheless, I will support it as it's better than the current system.

[Hatman 🍁]

Nay

[Hatman 🍁]

Nay

[Hatman 🍁]

I would strongly urge those who broadly support the move to PR-STV to vote in favour of the amendment.

I'm sorry, but I dont support this "countback" method.

[Hatman 🍁]

Mr. Vice President, I think we have at least three Senators who support PR but oppose this amendment. Do you really think implementing countback will increase the chances of this bill passing? 

[Hatman 🍁]

I would strongly urge those who broadly support the move to PR-STV to vote in favour of the amendment.

I'm sorry, but I dont support this "countback" method.

What would you support for vacancies? And please read the flaws with a by-election before suggesting that one.

Sorry, I support a special election. The only flaw is it wouldn't be using an STV-PR system.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm sorry Jas, but the only method of filling vacancies that I will support is through a by-election.

[Hatman 🍁]

Nay

[Hatman 🍁]

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

It's undemocratic

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

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.

I thought this was a constitutional amendment, but I guess it's not. I didn't think one could change the electoral system without one.

[Hatman 🍁]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

I agree. As I outlined in my opposition to the popular initiative amendment, changing the voting system is one of those things that should be put to a referendum.

[Hatman 🍁]

Abstain

[Hatman 🍁]

abstain

[Hatman 🍁]

Aye

[Hatman 🍁]

Aye