Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Poirot]

Sorry for the name. I was only noticing the thread title.
Thanks for explaining to me when it would start.

[Barnes]

If I were looking for a Senator to sponsor a bill (or bills) on my behalf in the Senate, would this be the appropriate place to inquire?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If I were looking for a Senator to sponsor a bill (or bills) on my behalf in the Senate, would this be the appropriate place to inquire?

You could just PM bore or hell as a former Southerner (in game), I would still hook you up.

[Barnes]

If I were looking for a Senator to sponsor a bill (or bills) on my behalf in the Senate, would this be the appropriate place to inquire?

You could just PM bore or hell as a former Southerner (in game), I would still hook you up.

Seems like I've found a sponsor at the moment; but I'll remember your offer, Yankee.  Who knows what I might use it for...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Look at it like this, Barnes. You didn't get expelled, you are just 17 months late for work.


"I didn't quit, I am just seven years late for work" - Dave Chappelle.

[Poirot]

I have worries about the method of election by party list in the bicameralism bill for candidates who are not from major parties.

First, I would like to know if a voter could only make a choice (or choices) in one list. There is no way a voter could select candidates that are not in the same list.

It has been suggested in the bill discussion thread:
Each major party would be allowed to determine how it will handle the selection/order of candidates
Everyone else would caucus together and use standard PR-STV to determine selection/order


Everyone else is lumped together in the same list? So two independent candidates, one Far Left and one Earth Liberation could be on the same list. Even if voters are able to rank candidates in a single list, can voters know in choosing the Everyone else list that their vote won't help elect someone they don't like.

I'm trying to imagine if that type of ballot will be good for candidates not in major parties. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I have worries about the method of election by party list in the bicameralism bill for candidates who are not from major parties.

First, I would like to know if a voter could only make a choice (or choices) in one list. There is no way a voter could select candidates that are not in the same list.

It has been suggested in the bill discussion thread:
Each major party would be allowed to determine how it will handle the selection/order of candidates
Everyone else would caucus together and use standard PR-STV to determine selection/order


Everyone else is lumped together in the same list? So two independent candidates, one Far Left and one Earth Liberation could be on the same list. Even if voters are able to rank candidates in a single list, can voters know in choosing the Everyone else list that their vote won't help elect someone they don't like.

I'm trying to imagine if that type of ballot will be good for candidates not in major parties. 

What would make sense is to have it so that independent and minor party candidates can choose whether to join a list with others, or whether to run by themselves. 

Whether a voter could select more than one list I'm not clear on either.

[Poirot]

What would make sense is to have it so that independent and minor party candidates can choose whether to join a list with others, or whether to run by themselves. 

Whether a voter could select more than one list I'm not clear on either.

I wouldn't like forcing independent and small parties to be on the same miscellaneous list. Having their own list would be better but then a possible difficulty for them if voters can select only one list is being seen as having a good chance to have enough votes to win. If voters don't believe these candidates can garner enough votes and voting is not transferable to another list, then they could decide to avoid risking wasting a vote and go to the biggest party they like.

I've been trying to imagine what the voting dynamic would be with party list for independent / small parties. The bicameral proposal seems to be tied to shrinking the number of regions so I am opposed to it.   

[Prince of Salem]

Would Sen. Bore or any At-Large Senator or just any Senator introduce this bill to the Senate? Please

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not like I've got anything against transgenders, but we are talking about government spending and taxpayer's money here, and I really believe this isn't the best way to go with it.

[bore]

Obviously I don't and can't see myself supporting this bill, but I think, given civilian introduced legislation is rare enough that it should be encouraged, there is a shortage of items in the queue and I am JomCAR's regional senator I'll introduce the bill.

[Prince of Salem]

Obviously I don't and can't see myself supporting this bill, but I think, given civilian introduced legislation is rare enough that it should be encouraged, there is a shortage of items in the queue and I am JomCAR's regional senator I'll introduce the bill.

Thank you Senator ^^

[WrathOfTheGods]

I'd like to have any senator introducing this bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

May the gods be with you.

[Prince of Salem]

I'd like to have any senator introducing this bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

May the gods be with you.

[WrathOfTheGods]

Forget about the bill I put before. Due to new data given, I'll present this instead:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

May the gods be with you.

[GAworth]

So I am not really sure where to put this comment, but here seems as good as any (in regards to the Bicameral Birthing Bill)

If we use districts when talking about a lower house, I suggest that we create a freeze on moving from state to state one month prior to the election, at that time the SoFE or whoever is responsible would then re-apportion the districts. The freeze would be lifted after the election has concluded. If we use a proportional lower house like the real Congress, then I suggest a freeze for regional shifts as well during this time. If a new member joins during the freeze, their addition does not affect the district make up.

If we are contemplating districts, this seems reasonable, I know this was a concern.

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Labor Party is turning this game into a joke. Before, in terms of ideology, we were on a Vermont or Massachusetts level. I don't even know what you would call the level we are at now...at this rate I would be surprised if this game lasted another year.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Labor Party is turning this game into a joke. Before, in terms of ideology, we were on a Vermont or Massachusetts level. I don't even know what you would call the level we are at now...at this rate I would be surprised if this game lasted another year.

The game will prosper once the reactionaries are eliminated. I fully support comrade TNF's bill.

[Lumine]

Mother of god... We may not have a PPT to strike down that abomination before it even reaches the floor, but you can bet I will demand that bill to be tabled!

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Labor Party is turning this game into a joke. Before, in terms of ideology, we were on a Vermont or Massachusetts level. I don't even know what you would call the level we are at now...at this rate I would be surprised if this game lasted another year.

Mother of god... We may not have a PPT to strike down that abomination before it even reaches the floor, but you can bet I will demand that bill to be tabled!

I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

[Lumine]

I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

[TNF]

I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

Not really. The bourgeoisie need to be kept fearful. No nation needs to be nuked.

[Lumine]

I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

Not really. The bourgeoisie need to be kept fearful. No nation needs to be nuked.

You honestly see nothing wrong with class warfare and dismissing entire sectors of our society while using government assets to scare the people of Atlasia, don't you?

[TNF]

I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

Not really. The bourgeoisie need to be kept fearful. No nation needs to be nuked.

You honestly see nothing wrong with class warfare and dismissing entire sectors of our society while using government assets to scare the people of Atlasia, don't you?

Nope. The bourgeoisie are disgusting parasites and deserve everything the proletariat send their way.

[Lumine]

Then I stand by my comments, this insanity has to be stopped as soon as possible.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'm not sure what's really offensive about it. It's not as if it allows the guillotine to be used, or anything. I mean hell, Clause 3 clearly doles out punishment for violators.

Senator, nuking a random nation makes more sense than that bill, and I hope to see the rest of the Labor senators opposing it as well.

Not really. The bourgeoisie need to be kept fearful. No nation needs to be nuked.

You honestly see nothing wrong with class warfare and dismissing entire sectors of our society while using government assets to scare the people of Atlasia, don't you?

That's kind of the point. Terror is the goal.