Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: Marokai Backbeat on October 12, 2009, 05:27:41 PM



Title: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Passed to Regions]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 12, 2009, 05:27:41 PM
Quote
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days."

Sponsor: Senator Tmthforu94


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 12, 2009, 05:28:34 PM
I personally don't think it goes far enough.  It's probably the best that can be achieved, though.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 12, 2009, 05:35:45 PM
Well I do think it goes far enough. I might even support reeling it back a month or so, but it has my complete support regardless.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 12, 2009, 05:38:58 PM
I see nothing wrong with this.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2009, 06:05:03 PM
I personally don't think it goes far enough.  It's probably the best that can be achieved, though.
What do you think the Senate could do, Governor Ben, to make this amendment better?

Lt. Gov. PiT suggested the idea to allow people to move if there is a real life move. While that would be ideal, it could be a lot of work for moderators, and there could be some loopholes in this.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 12, 2009, 06:08:06 PM
I personally don't think it goes far enough.  It's probably the best that can be achieved, though.
What do you think the Senate could do, Governor Ben, to make this amendment better?

Lt. Gov. PiT suggested the idea to allow people to move if there is a real life move. While that would be ideal, it could be a lot of work for moderators, and there could be some loopholes in this.

    It occurred to me that people have sometimes experienced spontaneous temporary IP changes. I doubt there would be that many changes due to real life moves, so maybe they could be required to wait a week first & then the mods could go back & check the poster's IP addresses over the last week or so.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 12, 2009, 06:12:09 PM
What do you think the Senate could do, Governor Ben, to make this amendment better?

I'd like to add in a requirement saying that people must move at least 45 days prior to an election taking place in order to vote in that election.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2009, 06:15:16 PM
What do you think the Senate could do, Governor Ben, to make this amendment better?

I'd like to add in a requirement saying that people must move at least 45 days prior to an election taking place in order to vote in that election.

Well, that could be complicated in a region like ours, where we have elections running every two months. I could consider 15, maybe even 30, though. But you could easily work your way around that. Most parties know which candidates they're running months before the election. That would only make things a little more difficult for them, having to make sure everyone was moved to the right region within 45/30/15 days before the election.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Hash on October 12, 2009, 06:15:47 PM
I support this, and I would not vote against a reduction of the time frame from 180 to 120 or 90. Though 90 is the absolute limit.

I oppose a loophole for 'real-life moves', since it's easy to fake that and forcing mods to do an IP check would get very tedious on them if they even bother doing it.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 12, 2009, 06:20:38 PM
Well, that could be complicated in a region like ours, where we have elections running every two months. I could consider 15, maybe even 30, though. But you could easily work your way around that. Most parties know which candidates they're running months before the election. That would only make things a little more difficult for them, having to make sure everyone was moved to the right region within 45/30/15 days before the election.

I don't want to make it any easier for a Party to move people in before an election.  While you have a valid point about the 2 month elections, nobody has strategically moved in order to win the Mideast Assembly or the Governorship of the Northeast.  This is all about Federal Elections, which are every 4 months.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 12, 2009, 06:23:09 PM
I support this, and I would not vote against a reduction of the time frame from 180 to 120 or 90. Though 90 is the absolute limit.

I oppose a loophole for 'real-life moves', since it's easy to fake that and forcing mods to do an IP check would get very tedious on them if they even bother doing it.

     Especially if they have to sniff out proxies. Yeah, it's probably for the best to not include that.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Hash on October 12, 2009, 06:27:54 PM
Also, I say we use this opportunity to clarify, in words and on paper, that no 'free moves' are to be allowed.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2009, 06:34:10 PM
Also, I say we use this opportunity to clarify, in words and on paper, that no 'free moves' are to be allowed.
That's a good idea.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 12, 2009, 06:36:45 PM
I have a certain soft spot for the 'free move.' It allows people who are new to the game to get more used to it and move to a region they more appreciate. We should still retain some newbie-friendliness.

Unfortunately it also has the potential for great abuse, which is why I'm conflicted. However, if people are going to vote stack, I'd imagine they'd do it in the initial registration, and not necessarily in the free move.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2009, 06:37:42 PM
I have a certain soft spot for the 'free move.' It allows people who are new to the game to get more used to it and move to a region they more appreciate. We should still retain some newbie-friendliness.

Unfortunately it also has the potential for great abuse, which is why I'm conflicted. However, if people are going to vote stack, I'd imagine they'd do it in the initial registration, and not necessarily in the free move.
How about, making the free move void after a period of one week?


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 12, 2009, 06:38:06 PM
I have a certain soft spot for the 'free move.' It allows people who are new to the game to get more used to it and move to a region they more appreciate. We should still retain some newbie-friendliness.

Unfortunately it also has the potential for great abuse, which is why I'm conflicted. However, if people are going to vote stack, I'd imagine they'd do it in the initial registration, and not necessarily in the free move.
How about, making the free move void after a period of one week?

That's a reasonable compromise.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Purple State on October 12, 2009, 07:38:35 PM
Bravo for game reform.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2009, 08:05:47 PM
I propose an amendment to my own bill. :P Special thanks to Marokai for assisting me on this.

Quote
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days.

2. New citizens registering to vote shall have seven days in which the 180 days requirement does not apply for one "free move." After the individual has used their "free move" or after the 7 days have passed, the 180 day limit applies, with seven days deducted from the overall limit.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 12, 2009, 08:06:48 PM
I believe we just treat this as a friendly amendment, so Senators have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Sbane on October 13, 2009, 09:49:52 PM
I support this, and I would not vote against a reduction of the time frame from 180 to 120 or 90. Though 90 is the absolute limit.

I oppose a loophole for 'real-life moves', since it's easy to fake that and forcing mods to do an IP check would get very tedious on them if they even bother doing it.

If you reduce it to 90, won't individuals be able to move in between regional senate races?  I support keeping the bill as it is.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 09:51:03 PM
I support this, and I would not vote against a reduction of the time frame from 180 to 120 or 90. Though 90 is the absolute limit.

I oppose a loophole for 'real-life moves', since it's easy to fake that and forcing mods to do an IP check would get very tedious on them if they even bother doing it.

If you reduce it to 90, won't individuals be able to move in between regional senate races?  I support keeping the bill as it is.

No because regional elections are every 4 months. 4 months>90 days.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Purple State on October 13, 2009, 09:54:54 PM
I support this, and I would not vote against a reduction of the time frame from 180 to 120 or 90. Though 90 is the absolute limit.

I oppose a loophole for 'real-life moves', since it's easy to fake that and forcing mods to do an IP check would get very tedious on them if they even bother doing it.

If you reduce it to 90, won't individuals be able to move in between regional senate races?  I support keeping the bill as it is.

No because regional elections are every 4 months. 4 months>90 days.

Which means you could move in between regional Senate races, because there are more than ninety days in four months.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Sbane on October 13, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
I support this, and I would not vote against a reduction of the time frame from 180 to 120 or 90. Though 90 is the absolute limit.

I oppose a loophole for 'real-life moves', since it's easy to fake that and forcing mods to do an IP check would get very tedious on them if they even bother doing it.

If you reduce it to 90, won't individuals be able to move in between regional senate races?  I support keeping the bill as it is.

No because regional elections are every 4 months. 4 months>90 days.

Which means you could move after 3 months to the next region that looks competitive. I guess anything more than 120 days should be sufficient.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 09:57:29 PM
I support this, and I would not vote against a reduction of the time frame from 180 to 120 or 90. Though 90 is the absolute limit.

I oppose a loophole for 'real-life moves', since it's easy to fake that and forcing mods to do an IP check would get very tedious on them if they even bother doing it.

If you reduce it to 90, won't individuals be able to move in between regional senate races?  I support keeping the bill as it is.

No because regional elections are every 4 months. 4 months>90 days.

Which means you could move in between regional Senate races, because there are more than ninety days in four months.

30+31+30+31=122

So yeah, 125 days I suppose is good enough.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:11:40 PM
But there is no reason to get rid of the free move.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Rowan on October 13, 2009, 10:16:30 PM
I oppose this amendment and call for a vote on it. The free move should be removed as it is just another way for these people to pawn the system.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Purple State on October 13, 2009, 10:25:34 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:26:25 PM
The free move is necessary to keep people in the game.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Rowan on October 13, 2009, 10:28:28 PM
The free move is necessary to keep people in the game.

No it's not. Moving should be just made on a whim. In real life you don't just move for the hell of it.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:29:32 PM
The free move is necessary to keep people in the game.

No it's not. Moving should be just made on a whim. In real life you don't just move for the hell of it.

This isn't real life, so get over it.

Purple State def. made use of his free move.

I'm glad I moved.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:30:12 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Rowan on October 13, 2009, 10:33:21 PM
The free move is necessary to keep people in the game.

No it's not. Moving should be just made on a whim. In real life you don't just move for the hell of it.

This isn't real life, so get over it.

Purple State def. made use of his free move.

I'm glad I moved.

What other reason to keep it than to be able to maneuver your zombies where you want them? You seem to be the only one fighting against this bill.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Purple State on October 13, 2009, 10:33:57 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?

Saying that I used it therefore it is vital to the game is a logical fallacy. I am sure I would have survived without it. Now, especially with the proliferation of regional legislatures and rise in activity from my early days, the free move is unnecessary. Involvement in the game is not limited based on your region as it was when only the Mideast actually did anything.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:34:23 PM
The free move is necessary to keep people in the game.

No it's not. Moving should be just made on a whim. In real life you don't just move for the hell of it.

This isn't real life, so get over it.

Purple State def. made use of his free move.

I'm glad I moved.

What other reason to keep it than to be able to maneuver your zombies where you want them? You seem to be the only one fighting against this bill.

Maybe because I'd never want to be stuck in a crappy region like the South or Pacific that are boring and uneventful.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:34:55 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?

Saying that I used it therefore it is vital to the game is a logical fallacy. I am sure I would have survived without it. Now, especially with the proliferation of regional legislatures and rise in activity from my early days, the free move is unnecessary. Involvement in the game is not limited based on your region as it was when only the Mideast actually did anything.

That's not true. The Pacific and South suck just as much as ever.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Purple State on October 13, 2009, 10:41:57 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?

Saying that I used it therefore it is vital to the game is a logical fallacy. I am sure I would have survived without it. Now, especially with the proliferation of regional legislatures and rise in activity from my early days, the free move is unnecessary. Involvement in the game is not limited based on your region as it was when only the Mideast actually did anything.

That's not true. The Pacific and South suck just as much as ever.

Partly because members who would vote for the legislature can't keep their asses in the region because they need to strategically register somewhere else.

The Pacific is another story and would probably be more exciting if non-JCP members actually gave it a shot and stayed.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:43:25 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?

Saying that I used it therefore it is vital to the game is a logical fallacy. I am sure I would have survived without it. Now, especially with the proliferation of regional legislatures and rise in activity from my early days, the free move is unnecessary. Involvement in the game is not limited based on your region as it was when only the Mideast actually did anything.

That's not true. The Pacific and South suck just as much as ever.

Partly because members who would vote for the legislature can't keep their asses in the region because they need to strategically register somewhere else.

The Pacific is another story and would probably be more exciting if non-JCP members actually gave it a shot and stayed.

People left the South because they didn't like Bacon King and DWTl.

People left the Pacific because it's boring and there is no way to fix it.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Purple State on October 13, 2009, 10:47:56 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?

Saying that I used it therefore it is vital to the game is a logical fallacy. I am sure I would have survived without it. Now, especially with the proliferation of regional legislatures and rise in activity from my early days, the free move is unnecessary. Involvement in the game is not limited based on your region as it was when only the Mideast actually did anything.

That's not true. The Pacific and South suck just as much as ever.

Partly because members who would vote for the legislature can't keep their asses in the region because they need to strategically register somewhere else.

The Pacific is another story and would probably be more exciting if non-JCP members actually gave it a shot and stayed.

People left the South because they didn't like Bacon King and DWTl.

People left the Pacific because it's boring and there is no way to fix it.

DWTL left the Southeast, so I don't really follow your logic there.

The Pacific would be less boring if people stayed, so your logic is actually backwards here.

Either way, the free move is a bad idea and, if it must remain, should be somewhere around 72 hours, not a week.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:49:58 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?

Saying that I used it therefore it is vital to the game is a logical fallacy. I am sure I would have survived without it. Now, especially with the proliferation of regional legislatures and rise in activity from my early days, the free move is unnecessary. Involvement in the game is not limited based on your region as it was when only the Mideast actually did anything.

That's not true. The Pacific and South suck just as much as ever.

Partly because members who would vote for the legislature can't keep their asses in the region because they need to strategically register somewhere else.

The Pacific is another story and would probably be more exciting if non-JCP members actually gave it a shot and stayed.

People left the South because they didn't like Bacon King and DWTl.

People left the Pacific because it's boring and there is no way to fix it.

DWTL left the Southeast, so I don't really follow your logic there.

The Pacific would be less boring if people stayed, so your logic is actually backwards here.

Either way, the free move is a bad idea and, if it must remain, should be somewhere around 72 hours, not a week.

People leave the Pacific because it's boring and sucks.

DWTL left the South after others. I know Dan left it because of DWTL. DWTL left because of Bacon King.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Purple State on October 13, 2009, 10:51:46 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?

Saying that I used it therefore it is vital to the game is a logical fallacy. I am sure I would have survived without it. Now, especially with the proliferation of regional legislatures and rise in activity from my early days, the free move is unnecessary. Involvement in the game is not limited based on your region as it was when only the Mideast actually did anything.

That's not true. The Pacific and South suck just as much as ever.

Partly because members who would vote for the legislature can't keep their asses in the region because they need to strategically register somewhere else.

The Pacific is another story and would probably be more exciting if non-JCP members actually gave it a shot and stayed.

People left the South because they didn't like Bacon King and DWTl.

People left the Pacific because it's boring and there is no way to fix it.

DWTL left the Southeast, so I don't really follow your logic there.

The Pacific would be less boring if people stayed, so your logic is actually backwards here.

Either way, the free move is a bad idea and, if it must remain, should be somewhere around 72 hours, not a week.

People leave the Pacific because it's boring and sucks.

DWTL left the South after others. I know Dan left it because of DWTL. DWTL left because of Bacon King.

I wouldn't mind the Senate putting an end to stupid moving like that either. If you leave because you dislike a person in your region... please...

And DWTL left the Southeast to run for Senate, nothing else.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 13, 2009, 10:52:44 PM
I think 125 days and specifically scrap the free move is appropriate.

Were you registered in New York for over 180 days?

Saying that I used it therefore it is vital to the game is a logical fallacy. I am sure I would have survived without it. Now, especially with the proliferation of regional legislatures and rise in activity from my early days, the free move is unnecessary. Involvement in the game is not limited based on your region as it was when only the Mideast actually did anything.

That's not true. The Pacific and South suck just as much as ever.

Partly because members who would vote for the legislature can't keep their asses in the region because they need to strategically register somewhere else.

The Pacific is another story and would probably be more exciting if non-JCP members actually gave it a shot and stayed.

People left the South because they didn't like Bacon King and DWTl.

People left the Pacific because it's boring and there is no way to fix it.

DWTL left the Southeast, so I don't really follow your logic there.

The Pacific would be less boring if people stayed, so your logic is actually backwards here.

Either way, the free move is a bad idea and, if it must remain, should be somewhere around 72 hours, not a week.

People leave the Pacific because it's boring and sucks.

DWTL left the South after others. I know Dan left it because of DWTL. DWTL left because of Bacon King.

I wouldn't mind the Senate putting an end to stupid moving like that either. If you leave because you dislike a person in your region... please...

And DWTL left the Southeast to run for Senate, nothing else.

He wouldn't have left if he were an Assemblyman. All Bacon King's fault.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 14, 2009, 04:47:08 AM
I believe we just treat this as a friendly amendment, so Senators have 24 hours to object.

I saw no objections to the amendment, so consider it done.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 05:36:46 AM
I believe we just treat this as a friendly amendment, so Senators have 24 hours to object.

I saw no objections to the amendment, so consider it done.

Do I not exist?

I oppose this amendment and call for a vote on it. The free move should be removed as it is just another way for these people to pawn the system.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 14, 2009, 05:57:12 AM
I believe we just treat this as a friendly amendment, so Senators have 24 hours to object.

I saw no objections to the amendment, so consider it done.

Do I not exist?

I oppose this amendment and call for a vote on it. The free move should be removed as it is just another way for these people to pawn the system.

I apologize. If non-Senators would stop cluttering this up it'd be easier to read. As soon as I read over this thread I saw a ton of PS and Hamilton posts (with you thrown in from time to time) and immediately thought "Okay, I'm so not reading this, this can't be important."

Quoting my post would've made it easier to notice among the sea of other posts.

Anyway, here you are:



The following amendment is at a vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain:

Quote
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days.

2. New citizens registering to vote shall have seven days in which the 180 days requirement does not apply for one "free move." After the individual has used their "free move" or after the 7 days have passed, the 180 day limit applies, with seven days deducted from the overall limit.



Aye.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: minionofmidas on October 14, 2009, 06:19:58 AM
I have a certain soft spot for the 'free move.' It allows people who are new to the game to get more used to it and move to a region they more appreciate. We should still retain some newbie-friendliness.

Unfortunately it also has the potential for great abuse, which is why I'm conflicted. However, if people are going to vote stack, I'd imagine they'd do it in the initial registration, and not necessarily in the free move.
It depends on whether someone is recruited for asshattery from outside the forum, or right after he registers. Either is perfectly rational and has happened in the past.

There is currently no such thing as a legally defined thing called a "free move" though, and absolutely no argument for creating it. If you want to stop people from moving between the 8th and 180th day after registering as well as within 180 after moving, it would be wise to write an amendment that simply says so.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Hash on October 14, 2009, 06:54:55 AM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Fritz on October 14, 2009, 07:16:51 AM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 14, 2009, 07:25:24 AM
Ugh. All voting on this is doing is slowing up the proccess.
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 14, 2009, 07:30:11 AM
Aye.

I like keeping the free move for the first seven days and then removing it as an option. We could amend it later to reduce the limit from 180 to 125 or whatever, but that basic structure and change to the free move is good.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 08:47:08 AM
Nay

The free move is an embarrasment to the system.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Vepres on October 14, 2009, 09:53:48 AM
Nay

The free move is an embarrasment to the system.

But what if a newbie moves to the Dirty South :P


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Franzl on October 14, 2009, 05:17:23 PM
I don't particularly like the free move....but I can see its merit. Aye.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 05:19:34 PM
Nay

The free move
Rowan is an embarrasment to the system.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 14, 2009, 05:20:28 PM

This bickering in the Senate has got to stop, it's not even entertaining or substantive bickering. And yes, this goes for Rowan too.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 14, 2009, 05:21:10 PM
Anyway I'm just thrilled I held a vote on that.

With 6 Ayes, the amendment has passed and debate continues.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Badger on October 14, 2009, 08:00:06 PM
I have a certain soft spot for the 'free move.' It allows people who are new to the game to get more used to it and move to a region they more appreciate. We should still retain some newbie-friendliness.

Unfortunately it also has the potential for great abuse, which is why I'm conflicted. However, if people are going to vote stack, I'd imagine they'd do it in the initial registration, and not necessarily in the free move.
I agree with Blue. The problem isn't so much with newbies figuring out the system, but with old hands cynically engaging in region hopping depending on the next hotly contested race. Give newbies a chance to get their feet wet and switch once within 30 days of first registration. After that it's 6 months.

Again, newbies aren't the problem.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on October 14, 2009, 08:07:06 PM

Enough.  Have some dignity, instead of acting like a small child.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 08:16:08 PM

Sorry I lack the dignity to want to burn down Iran.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 14, 2009, 08:17:04 PM
At any rate, this is a horrendously bad idea.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 08:30:01 PM
At any rate, this is a horrendously bad idea.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 14, 2009, 08:30:43 PM
At any rate, this is a horrendously bad idea.

Its better them your horrendously bad idea. I would rather try this first, then see if works then jump right into huge changes like you want.


Stop disrepected the hollowed chambers of the Senate. Great mighty men have worked where you now slither over in comparison to there stature, so please, some respect would be nice.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 14, 2009, 09:00:17 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 14, 2009, 09:08:25 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

We will see.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 14, 2009, 09:10:03 PM

No. The risk is too great. Forcing new members to wait almost a month will turn Atlasia ever more into a walled-off island. This is cutting off the nose to spite the face. I would prefer zombies to this.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 09:10:53 PM

No. The risk is too great. Forcing new members to wait almost a month will turn Atlasia ever more into a walled-off island. This is cutting off the nose to spite the face. I would prefer zombies to this.

Plus people would just find ways around it anyway.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 09:12:14 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

It's better than nothing.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 14, 2009, 09:12:44 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

It's better than nothing.

Not at all. Stopping legitimate people from discovering Atlasia is far worse than nothing.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Rowan on October 14, 2009, 09:13:26 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

It's better than nothing.

Not at all. Stopping legitimate people from discovering Atlasia is far worse than nothing.

And if they really care, they will wait.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 09:15:13 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

It's better than nothing.

Not at all. Stopping legitimate people from discovering Atlasia is far worse than nothing.

And if they really care, they will wait.

Why should they have to wait to join your elite and exclusive club?


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 14, 2009, 09:16:24 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

It's better than nothing.

Not at all. Stopping legitimate people from discovering Atlasia is far worse than nothing.

And if they really care, they will wait.

Why should they have to wait to join your elite and exclusive club?

Indeed. If I had to wait 25 days, I would have never joined. We shouldn't be restricting access to people who "really care" before joining.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: bgwah on October 14, 2009, 09:53:30 PM
May I recommend simply saying "six months" instead of 180 days? It would be easier for the SoFA to count that way. Or maybe I'm just being silly... :)


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 14, 2009, 09:57:09 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

It's better than nothing.

Not at all. Stopping legitimate people from discovering Atlasia is far worse than nothing.

And if they really care, they will wait.

Why should they have to wait to join your elite and exclusive club?

Indeed. If I had to wait 25 days, I would have never joined. We shouldn't be restricting access to people who "really care" before joining.

     I think you are talking about a different amendment. This is the one that increases the time between moves to six months.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 14, 2009, 09:58:28 PM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

It's better than nothing.

Not at all. Stopping legitimate people from discovering Atlasia is far worse than nothing.

And if they really care, they will wait.

Why should they have to wait to join your elite and exclusive club?

Indeed. If I had to wait 25 days, I would have never joined. We shouldn't be restricting access to people who "really care" before joining.

     I think you are talking about a different amendment. This is the one that increases the time between moves to six months.

In either case, I'd have left if I were stuck in the Pacific. It goes for both of these atrocious bills.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 15, 2009, 06:40:13 AM
You think that these paper barriers will halt strategic registration?

It's better than nothing.

Not at all. Stopping legitimate people from discovering Atlasia is far worse than nothing.

And if they really care, they will wait.

Why should they have to wait to join your elite and exclusive club?

Indeed. If I had to wait 25 days, I would have never joined. We shouldn't be restricting access to people who "really care" before joining.

I didn't realise this bill had a clause that made people have to wait 25 before registering. I thought that was a separate amendment. Maybe we could reduce to 20, as a compromise if so.

May I recommend simply saying "six months" instead of 180 days? It would be easier for the SoFA to count that way. Or maybe I'm just being silly... :)

I would be willing to introduce an amendment, but I don't have time till this evening. So I hope Marokai doesn't bring this up for a final vote before then.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 15, 2009, 08:11:19 AM
I'm very pro-debate, so usually even if there's an inkling of debate left, I'll be keeping it open. You don't have anything to worry about with this bill anyway, it won't come up for a final vote yet.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on October 15, 2009, 08:37:28 AM
I fully support this bill and work to see its passage in the Northeast.  However, I support the free move.  If strategic registration occurs, it is usually right when the person signs up so giving them seven days is a legitimate because that probably means they aren't strategically registering.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 15, 2009, 06:56:13 PM
For the sake of the SoFA, I offer the following amendment

Quote
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days four months.

2. New citizens registering to vote shall have seven days in which the 180 days four month requirement does not apply for one "free move." After the individual has used their "free move" or after the 7 days have passed, the 180 day four month limit applies, with seven days deducted from the overall limit.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 15, 2009, 06:59:20 PM
I'm not too crazy about lowering the limit, honestly. And using "month" instead of "day" is somewhat unfair, thanks to February. Some people might not have to wait as long.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 07:01:31 PM
I'm not too crazy about lowering the limit, honestly. And using "month" instead of "day" is somewhat unfair, thanks to February. Some people might not have to wait as long.

Elections aren't held on days, so it doesn't matter.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 15, 2009, 07:01:48 PM
I'm not too crazy about lowering the limit, honestly. And using "month" instead of "day" is somewhat unfair, thanks to February. Some people might not have to wait as long.

Four months will also enable people to move around, if they start at the right time, according to every other election cycle, essentially doing nothing to stop the problem, just delaying it.

And yes, I agree that we should use numbers instead of "months."


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 07:02:52 PM
One week+4 months is better then.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Rowan on October 15, 2009, 07:05:20 PM
Bump it back up to 180. I will not support an amendment for it to be lower.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 15, 2009, 07:06:20 PM
Bump it back up to 180. I will not support an amendment for it to be lower.

Has your support been crucial to any bill? So far all your votes have been pretty damn irrelevant.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 15, 2009, 07:11:22 PM
Listen all I did was write up the suggestions of the former President Bgwah so they could be voted upon. I don't really have an opinion on this.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 15, 2009, 07:15:13 PM
And I just realised I screwed up the math. It should be 6 months not 4. GPorter still has me a little rattled from earlier. :P

I withdraw my amendment.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 15, 2009, 07:19:08 PM
Quote
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days six months.

2. New citizens registering to vote shall have seven days in which the 180 days six month requirement does not apply for one "free move." After the individual has used their "free move" or after the 7 days have passed, the 180 day six month limit applies, with seven days deducted from the overall limit.

Thats better, I think. :)



Just so you know that is 180 days that is struck out not 100. The strike through blends in the 8 making it look like a zero. ex. 88 88both numbers are eighty eight.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Fritz on October 16, 2009, 07:02:45 AM
I support Yankee's amended amendment.

Bump it back up to 180. I will not support an amendment for it to be lower.

Has your support been crucial to any bill? So far all your votes have been pretty damn irrelevant.

Please Hamilton, this is the Senate floor.  If you have substantive input, you may speak.  But do not come in here to insult or harrass the Senators.  That is a privelege we reserve to ourselves.  :)


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 17, 2009, 05:50:06 AM
Alright, I gave this some time, but there was no further imput unfortunately.

I take Tmth's discomfort on the issue of changing the days into "months" as an objection to the amendment. If that wasn't the case, I still object anyhow, and this is going up for a vote. Bolded parts are the amended areas.

The following amendment is now at a vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Quote
The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every six months.

2. New citizens registering to vote shall have seven days in which the six month requirement does not apply for one "free move." After the individual has used their "free move" or after the 7 days have passed, the six month limit applies, with seven days deducted from the overall limit.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Fritz on October 17, 2009, 08:03:27 AM
Aye.  I agree with using months rather than days.  Much simpler, and besides elections and terms are determined by the months, not the number of days.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 17, 2009, 08:09:00 AM
I have to vote Nay. I'm with Tmth that it's easier to just do it by days, as each month has a different amount of time involved, and it just makes it unnecessarily complicated. No need for the additional irritation, in my view.

I'd also like to say we measure most other things in days like this specifically for that reason, and we've made changes to that effect in the past. Doing it in days is standard practice.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Fritz on October 17, 2009, 08:26:58 AM
We sure disagree a lot, for members of the same party.  :P

How is days less complicated?  Let's say the starting point is February 9th.  What is 6 months from then?  Why, August 9th, of course.  What is 180 days from then?  That takes a little more figuring, and the answer will be different next year from this year's answer.

Elections and commencement of terms are scheduled to occur on particular weekends of particular months- not a fixed number of days.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 17, 2009, 08:30:53 AM
It is odd, isnt it? :P

Ultimately it's a minor difference that doesn't make that big of a deal one way or another to me. We have day requirements for joining and running for certain offices, which is what I was referring to.

Like I said, it's no big deal to me, I'd just prefer to stick with a set amount of days so one person doesn't get a few days shaved away and another guy has to deal with additional days between moves. It depends alot on when you join and when you move, but such a thing could occur.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: minionofmidas on October 17, 2009, 02:08:35 PM
I'll say it once more, a bit clearer this time: The Senate ought not to include the weird phrase "free move" in the Constitutional text under any circumstances.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: minionofmidas on October 17, 2009, 02:14:07 PM
There is currently no such thing as a legally defined thing called a "free move" though, and absolutely no argument for creating it. If you want to stop people from moving between the 8th and 180th day after registering as well as within 180 after moving, it would be wise to write an amendment that simply says so.

E.G.:

Quote
The Strategic Registration Amendment

Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days.
Citizens may not change their State of registration between the 8th and 180th day after registering to vote."




Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Јas on October 17, 2009, 03:58:22 PM
I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done. Despite the length of this thread, it's quite unclear why anyone here actually does support the idea.

It doesn't appear likely either that the proposals under discussion will have any significant impact on the blight that is strategic registration. If fellow Senators want an end to strategic registration then the only manner to really accomplish it is through ending the current system of regional Senate seats - rendering such strategic registration pointless.


At any rate, I agree with Lewis as above, so at least as a start, I'm introducing his amendment:

Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days.
Citizens may not change their State of registration between the 8th and 180th day after registering to vote."


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Badger on October 17, 2009, 06:28:47 PM
If the 180 day calculation vs. 6 months is used I guarantee you there will be voters who get screwed because they miscalculated by one day, and godawful time consuming debates calculating over individual voters. 6 months is VASTLY easier to compute, and the marginal differences in actual time of a day or two between 6 month periods having months with slightly varied month lengths is a nominal inconsequential price to pay for accuracy and ready brightline understandable deadlines.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 17, 2009, 06:32:50 PM
Whether or not you agree about the free move, we have a vote ongoing here, people.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Rowan on October 17, 2009, 06:40:36 PM
Abstain, for now.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Hash on October 17, 2009, 06:43:24 PM
Whether or not you agree about the free move, we have a vote ongoing here, people.

Ah, got cluttered over by other stuff.

Nay. I agree with Marokai and tmth's issues.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 17, 2009, 08:29:06 PM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 17, 2009, 08:32:11 PM
Nay
February throughs things off, so there could be people who would have to wait longer than others. While that isn't a huge deal, it is still unfair.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 18, 2009, 04:52:26 AM
2 Ayes, 3 Nays, 1 Abstaining..

We can do better than 6/10, come on.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: minionofmidas on October 18, 2009, 05:51:59 AM
I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.
I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

Quote
If fellow Senators want an end to strategic registration then the only manner to really accomplish it is through ending the current system of regional Senate seats - rendering such strategic registration pointless.
Absolutely.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Јas on October 18, 2009, 06:11:54 AM
I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.
I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

Quote from: 7th Amendment
Persons may only change their State of registration once every sixty days.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 06:12:35 AM
I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.
I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

Quote from: 7th Amendment
Persons may only change their State of registration once every sixty days.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

An initial registration isn't a change.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Јas on October 18, 2009, 06:20:58 AM
I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.
I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

Quote from: 7th Amendment
Persons may only change their State of registration once every sixty days.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

An initial registration isn't a change.

Of course it is. It is a change in one's State of registration - from not being registered anywhere to being registered wherever. The evidence is the changes made to the voter rolls when new registerees arise.

If the first registration isn't a change, then one could make a nonsense surely of other aspects of electoral law. One could presumably vote without being registered anywhere - as an initial registration apparently doesn't change one's registration; therefore one would be as valid before being registered as after.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 06:22:22 AM
I don't accept that the so-called "free move" actually exists at all at present, nor that there exists a legal basis for it. It is a matter for the SoFA to enforce the legal reality and a matter for legal challenge if this is not done.
I disagree. The rule is that people may change their state of registration ("move") once every so and so often. An original registration is not a "move". The current interpretation is correct. It's only the misconception that this represents a "free move" that is throwing things off.

I agree that the original registration is not a "move" - but I think that's irrelevant.

Quote from: 7th Amendment
Persons may only change their State of registration once every sixty days.

The text refers to changing the State of registration, not "moving". I don't understand how any subsequent registration (fewer than 60 days after the original registration), purporting to give a different State, wouldn't fall foul of this provision.

An initial registration isn't a change.

Of course it is. It is a change in one's State of registration - from not being registered anywhere to being registered wherever. The evidence is the changes made to the voter rolls when new registerees arise.

If the first registration isn't a change, then one could make a nonsense surely of other aspects of electoral law. One could presumably vote without being registered anywhere - as an initial registration apparently doesn't change one's registration.

No. This is a voter registration. Not a move. I think it's safe to say I registered to vote just fine without changing states, and I only change my voter registration when I move. You have to be registered to change it. How can you change a nonexistent?


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Јas on October 18, 2009, 06:28:53 AM
No. This is a voter registration. Not a move.

Yeah, if you read my comments, you'll find I don't necessarily disagree with that point.

I think it's safe to say I registered to vote just fine without changing states, and I only change my voter registration when I move.

You may well have initially registered to vote without moving States - however that's irrelevant.

What's important is that one can't initially register without changing one's State of registration - from nothing to something. That is a change, the most fundamental and important change possible.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 18, 2009, 06:33:02 AM
I think it's safe to say I registered to vote just fine without changing states, and I only change my voter registration when I move.

You may well have initially registered to vote without moving States - however that's irrelevant.

What's important is that one can't initially register without changing one's State of registration - from nothing to something. That is a change, the most fundamental and important change possible.

I do not believe an initiation is a change. Going from nothing to something isn't a change. Going from one thing to another is change.

Main Entry: 1change
Pronunciation: \ˈchānj\
Function: verb

1.  to replace with another

Another suggests that it is something existent. An initiation does not involve replacement, being nonexistent and unprecedented in its previous state.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Јas on October 18, 2009, 06:57:20 AM
I think it's safe to say I registered to vote just fine without changing states, and I only change my voter registration when I move.

You may well have initially registered to vote without moving States - however that's irrelevant.

What's important is that one can't initially register without changing one's State of registration - from nothing to something. That is a change, the most fundamental and important change possible.

I do not believe an initiation is a change. Going from nothing to something isn't a change. Going from one thing to another is change.

Main Entry: 1change
Pronunciation: \ˈchānj\
Function: verb

1.  to replace with another

Another suggests that it is something existent. An initiation does not involve replacement, being nonexistent and unprecedented in its previous state.

Well we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
You've chosen one definition of change (in effect 'substitution') - there are many others (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/change), which I believe support my contention.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Franzl on October 18, 2009, 10:06:37 PM
Nay


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: MaxQue on October 18, 2009, 11:58:39 PM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 19, 2009, 11:39:35 AM
So what is the purpose of this amendment besides being unfair to members of Atlasia. February throws everything off, so saying 6 months could be inaccurate. 180 days would be more precise, and it would be fair.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Јas on October 19, 2009, 11:52:06 AM
Nay on the amendment at vote.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Brandon H on October 19, 2009, 02:55:52 PM
Nay on the amendment at vote.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

Here is the "debate" on that bill.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30427.30 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30427.30)

That doesn't help much.

I personally prefer four months or six months over 120 days or 180 days.

Agreeing with some of the other old timers on here, it would be advised that the Senators take their time to get the terminology correct before passing a final version.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 19, 2009, 04:43:04 PM
3 Ayes, 5 Nays, 1 Abstaining. This amendment has failed, debate continues.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 19, 2009, 05:03:37 PM
Nay on the amendment at vote.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

Here is the "debate" on that bill.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30427.30 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30427.30)

That doesn't help much.

I personally prefer four months or six months over 120 days or 180 days.

Agreeing with some of the other old timers on here, it would be advised that the Senators take their time to get the terminology correct before passing a final version.

Come to think of it, I could really use some help on proper bill righting. Its a skill thats hard to grasp. :)


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Alexander Hamilton on October 19, 2009, 05:04:14 PM
Nay on the amendment at vote.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

Here is the "debate" on that bill.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30427.30 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30427.30)

That doesn't help much.

I personally prefer four months or six months over 120 days or 180 days.

Agreeing with some of the other old timers on here, it would be advised that the Senators take their time to get the terminology correct before passing a final version.

Come to think of it, I could really use some help on proper bill righting. Its a skill thats hard to grasp. :)

Yep ::)



Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 19, 2009, 05:08:43 PM
Nay on the amendment at vote.

It was Emsworth, one of Atlasia's greatest ever legal minds, who submitted the 7th Amendment originally - that which changed the wording from "two months" to "sixty days" back in October 2005.

I can't recall the reasoning behind it - nor is there reference to why it was done in the Senate debate on the Amendment at the time, nor in the Senate Legislation Introductory thread when it was introduced, nor from the then protest and analysis thread, nor in any of the legal cases I've checked, so I'm unsure as to exactly what the reasoning for the change was.

I'm nonetheless presuming there was a sound, and potentially legally significant, reason for that change - so unless and until it is established to my satisfaction otherwise, I will vote to retain the days rather than months system of measurement.

Here is the "debate" on that bill.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30427.30 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=30427.30)

That doesn't help much.

I personally prefer four months or six months over 120 days or 180 days.

Agreeing with some of the other old timers on here, it would be advised that the Senators take their time to get the terminology correct before passing a final version.

Come to think of it, I could really use some help on proper bill righting. Its a skill thats hard to grasp. :)

Yep ::)



I was hoping someone would catch that, preferably Marokai and not you though. :P


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 20, 2009, 04:52:27 PM
I hereby open up a vote on the following amendment, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Quote
1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days.

2. Citizens may not change their State of registration between the 8th and 180th day after registering to vote."


Nay


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Rowan on October 20, 2009, 04:58:33 PM
Enthusiasticly AYE


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Franzl on October 20, 2009, 05:19:51 PM
Nay


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 20, 2009, 06:14:48 PM
On second thought, I change my vote to Aye.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 20, 2009, 06:24:50 PM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 20, 2009, 06:26:38 PM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Fritz on October 20, 2009, 10:49:17 PM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: MaxQue on October 21, 2009, 12:03:15 AM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: afleitch on October 21, 2009, 03:13:34 PM
Nay.

If we have a dip in participation and regions are crying out for elected representatives invited moves will almost be impossible.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 21, 2009, 03:55:51 PM
Everyone say hello Afleitch's first post ever in this thread.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: afleitch on October 21, 2009, 05:35:20 PM
Everyone say hello Afleitch's first post ever in this thread.

Briefly, I would like to inform the Senate that I've had some private and personal committments over the past two weeks. It may be the same next week. I've not been able to contribute to some discussions as much as I would have liked to.

I would however wish to re-iterate the comments I made about this bill in the Senate Protest and Analysis thread.

I'm happy with a harsh limit. However I think we could insert an amendment that allows the SoFA to exercise discretion to allow a switch before then if the voter has a legitimate reason in order to do so. There may be an appeal for someone to fill an office, but there is a lack of candidates in that region so someone moves at the Governors request for example. That has happened in the past.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Јas on October 22, 2009, 03:07:06 AM
I don't imagine that this can solve the problem of strategic registration (indeed I believe the second clause almost facilitiates it, enshringing a free move where I contend none existed).

I'll probably be voting against this when put to referendum, but I will agree to putting it to referendum.

Aye.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 22, 2009, 03:18:35 AM
7 Ayes, 2 Nays, this Amendment is currently passing. 24 hours to change your votes, everyone.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Hash on October 22, 2009, 06:46:58 AM
Aye


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Franzl on October 22, 2009, 03:33:33 PM
I change my vote to AYE, I guess, simply to show my support for the will of the people. I will certainly be voting against this in the referendum.


Title: Re: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Amendment at Vote]
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 23, 2009, 06:10:58 AM
9 Ayes, and 1 Nay, this Amendment passes and is chuggin' along to the regions.