Talk Elections

This thread has been opened in accordance with the Public Consultation Bill and shall be for all senatorial discussion which is not appropriate for individual bills threads. Citizen participation is welcome.

After what amounts to 4 months of running the senate I'm now moving on and in the days before the senate elects a new speaker TNF, as the dean, shall run the senate.

I'd like to thank Lumine who was always receptive to suggestions as to how to run the senate and other senator who served with me over the last few months and over the last couple of years.

If the next speaker needs any more help I'm happy to help, and will keep the topic titles for bills I introduced updated.

There is no Vice-President so what is the procedure for Cabinet nomination to take place. 

The speaker is acting as President of the Senate.
Considering there is no speaker elected as well, the dean of the senate who is acting as speaker is acting as president of the senate as well.

The Vice Presidency will likely be vacant for at least this week. With that in mind, I think it'd be prudent for the Dean to begin conducting the business before the Senate.

Can we bring the nominations on the senate floor to a final vote?

Soon talleyrand,
I cant open a vote until 3 days have elapsed.

I know Nix. But that would be stupid to do that considering that I will be able to open a vote in less than a hour now :P.

I would like to inform the Senate that I am following the tragic events at the Department of Federal Elections closely and will be acting along with the rest of the Cabinet to end the crisis in our nation.

Would somebody introduce this?

Capital Punishment Restoration Act

1. Capital punishment is hereby restored under federal law of Atlasia
2. Capital punishment shall be a sentencing option in cases of treason and terrorism
3. Death sentence shall be conducted within one week after the Supreme Court affirms a conviction and  President makes adecision not to interfere
4. Death sentence shall be carried out by means of decapitation by the guillotine

^You could actually introduce it yourself in the Public Consultations and Legislation Submission (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=208051.0) thread.

Ups, forgot about how to do this right.

I think we need to elect a new Speaker now that Talleyrand has resigned

Polnut is the one who has to open the thread under the rules (though Nix might be able to in the case of the Dean being on leave), but he is on leave until Sunday.

Though I should note he has been posting on the forum generally for the past week though he has not posted in the Senate. So how unreachable he might be is uncertain.

New Order of Seniority
Polnut - Dean of the Senate
Cris
Blair
myself
New Canadaland
Turk
Snowguy
PiT
Vacant
Vacant

The current senate:

Polnut
Cris
Blair
NC Yankee
New Canadaland
PiT
LumineVonReunthal
Rpyror
TNF
Vacant

?

FTFY

Why would Kalwejt's seat be vacant?

Good catch, the vacancy is the Pacific pending you taking office.

OK, since we've lost yet another PPT, who's the Dean now?

Since I'm not a Senator but have something to say on the Resolution for Peaceful Co-Existence (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=219007.0), I'll say it here.

For reference (yours and mine), here's the bill:


Now, this is a bit vague, and I strongly encourage the Senate to make it less vague. What, exactly, is included in "subvert[ing] or in any other way disrupt[ing] the Mock Parliament?" If, as Senator Truman stated, the punishments would include citizenship being taken away, this needs to be more specific.

By the way, to ease the minds of people who think I hate the Mock Parliament, I'm in favor of this bill (heck, I'm even in favor of diplomatic relations, in theory, just that we'd be lying to ourselves to say that the Mock Parliament doesn't have strong anti-Atlasian sentiment, or that it would be easy to have relations with someone who thinks we're a socialist wasteland without an impartial GM as "Reality Judge"). My only concern with this bill is the subjectivity it brings into the equation--subjectivity in the law is NEVER a good thing, people. Before this is passed, it needs to be clearer what this means, and how to punish violators.

Not Senate discussion, but government discussion: Talleyrand's tantrum lawsuit against the Registrar General is pathetic.

Adam's been a great RG, this is nothing but Talleyrand being sore over the controversy regarding his re-registry--which Adam resolved and then, going a step further, corrected the dates of other people to get it right.

Nothing but [male bovine waste] as high as en elephant's eye on this.

I am merely trying to maintain the integrity of our legal system! We cannot be selective in how we enforce our laws. And to insinuate my commitment to fair democratic ideals is due to some silly attacks that I easily brushed back, you are quite mistaken sir.

In addition, this has nothing to do with the Senate, so I have no idea why you have violated a thread about the workings of a legislative body! Take your hysterical rants elsewhere.

I don't see a "General Court Discussion" thread anywhere (maybe I missed it?) and I'd rather not clutter up the case thread that is already cluttered by a silly argument you and Windjammer had.

Also, how was that a hysterical rant? 3 sentences is hardly a rant (I mean, of anyone, I think I'd know what constitutes a rant...), and it was far from hysterical.

I created one in 2009, but it is not stickied and only gets bumped, usually by me, when a case has started, which means that most discussion has already run its course in other places, even the case threads the discussion thread was meant to keep clear.

Well, someone should sticky it then.

Its not officially endorsed. I was not a PPT or even Dean of the Senate when I created it, just a first term regional Senator from the then Dirty South. Some might say I "malaciously" created a place for supreme court discussion to occur outside of case threads. :P

Apologies for a drop in activity over the weekend -- it's a very busy time of year at work and school. I'll be looking through these new bills shortly. :)

Yea, I kind of had the same just with the former. I planned to spend most of today taking care of stuff on here, but with most of my days off, I ended up spending it asleep and taking care of important real life matters, within the limits that a Sunday allows.

I will be on very limited activity until Friday because of Thanksgiving. To all of my American friends I hope you have a safe and pleasant holiday.

Likewise.

Question: Am I able to vote on bills and amendments proposed before I was sworn in, but are still active?

I assume so, I did when I was a Senator as I joined half way through a session

Thanks

My citizen opinion is the Senate should confirm Talleyrand for the job of Secretary of Federal Elections. He was assistant to SoFE so he knows elections and is qualified for the role.

I think he applied for it so it shows his interest. It appears other people asked have refused. If Senators have concerns about the nominee due to past behavior, they can ask him what he would do in certain situations they think is open to interpretations and be reassured that way.

This is not a lifelong position. If he does an awful job he can be replaced. If he makes a call that you find unfair, you can go to the Supreme Court. So please Senators, confirm him.

In the Closing election loophole Act in regards to the editing ballot rule, there was a possibility brought up of clarifying the case of posting a ballot less than 20 minutes before the deadline and if the editing period could extend after the closing of the booth. I don't see this addresses in the Act.


I don't see the text makes clear no edit is valid after the voting booth closes.

I've been approached about the Constitutionality of this bill:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=231300.0

The bill passed the Northeast Assembly, but Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states:

.

The National Broadcaster might well be a media to show the Poirot series to the general public. I don't have to explain the cultural importance of this. For this and because there is a role for a national broadcaster, I am against its privatization.

I'm inclined to take your view of the matter, Poirot. I love Nyman Weekly and think Ted does an excellent job running his paper, but there's something to be said for having a media source that is not beholden to market forces.

Shouldn't there be a hearing for the nomination of a new Registrar General? I think the President nominated someone for that position.

Yup, 1184AZ was nominated.

About the Freedom to donate Act (blood), some countries have a requirement of no same sex relation in the last 12 months to be considered a donor. Canada justified 12 months this way:

“It’s still 12 months because the testing is imperfect, because we are still on this incremental journey,”

I prefer security. I don't know how satisfying it is to someone to be able to sue if you are transfered a disease. Atlasia should protect the citizens and have a high concern for security and adopt a 12 month period.

...And? Isn't that discrimination against the LGBT+ community? Straight people can get STDs too.

If that is the case to be made, any Atlasian who has been sexually active in the past 12 months shouldn't be able to donate blood. While that wouldn't affect very many actual Atlasians, in real life that would have a severely negative impact on the blood supply.

It's about risks. If countries like France, Canada or Australia have 12 month wait period, I imagine there is not all scientific evidence there is no risk. Besides I don't consider donating blood a fundamental right.

But is the risk for STDs actually significantly higher for homosexual interecorse than it is for hetrosexuaal intercoruse? I will admit that I have not looked up any statistics on the matter, but I am skeptical towards that thought.

The risk for HIV/AIDs is higher- but we need to debunk the myth that it's just gay people who have it- it varies in region

We need to make a new national flag.

Something with a big A for Atlasia
()

About the currency tactile Act, I dislike having and handling new Canadian polymer bank notes. I prefer standard paper. I believe old bank notes had tactile feature so if it's possible I prefer paper money.

What is the status of SSM in Atlasia? I know that with the new constitution we transferred over all the American federal laws, however because SSM was legalized by individual states and the supreme court, their is no federal law legalizing it.  Should the House/Senate pass a law clarifying the status regardless or are we leaving this as an Regional issue?

My interpretation is that how things are in America now is how it is in Atlasia. So same-sex marriage is legal.

The Confusion I had though is the fact DOMA and most of these SSM bans are still on the books but unenforceable, so does that mean these laws are unenforceable now, after all our constitution is not the same as the American one. Could someone propose legislation to clarify this potentially messy situation please?. What I don't want to see happen is for a similar situation as happened in Missouri in RL.     

If this is the new constitution on amendments:


two thirds of membership means what, the total of members in the body so 4/6 for Senate and 6/9 for House?

It doesn't depend on the number of legislators voting. If there is a vacancy is the membership total lower or it is always the total of seats in the constitution.

In the GM law, the GM can be dismissed by the President with agreement of legislators but is there a time period for the GM mandate? Does it end at the same time as the Presidential term or ends when the GM decided to resign (or dismissed). 

Suggestion and question on the Federal electoral Act.

Section 14:
Voter needs to post 10 times in the 8 weeks prior to the election.
We could make it 8 times, equivalent to once a week. Less votes would be thrown out because of number of posts.

Voter is deregistered after missing three federal elections. Are federal elections Presidential and House and Senate considered regional?

Section 6 on absentee voting
It doesn't give much time for a voter to vote by absentee ballot if a voter is gone all weekend. Vote can only occur after there is an official ballot (I think candidates can declare for House 1 day before the election. Maybe a voter who knows will be gone could not have to wait for the official ballot and send his ranking of candidates to the Secretary of Elections before the end of candidate declaration. 

I think it would be wise to consider reducing time of VP's undeclared absence time before the PPT can take over from 7 days to, let's say, 3 days.

In the Election law, waiting almost two weeks for elected candidates to take office tend to lead to lull period. Don't know if elected president need a long time to prepare before swearing in, but at least for other offices if for President is not possible, I prefer shorter lame duck period.

I'd like to urge the Congress to amend the GM Bill to provide for a deputy.

Just wanted to let everyone know that dfwlibertylover has been confirmed by the South Chamber of Delegates.

Pretty sure there will need to be an impeachment hearing for Spiral in the Senate based on the constitution.

On the Official language act, my opinion is English should be the official language for laws, elections and federal departments. All official government operations should be in English. All Atlasians don't have English as first language but if we want the game to function we need to use a common language.

While I understand where you're coming from, I think that would only be worth implementing should we start to have a problem with it. English is the de facto official language for Government.

In a proposal to change the electoral act:


Does this cover Senators? Senators are elected by regional ballot so not a federal election.

I think Senators beginning of term can vary by region if regions don't specify when a term begins.   

This is correct. Since senators are chosen by the regions, it's up to them to define when the old term ends and the new begins.

Even if it's legal I don't like a President who has that role by accident appoints a Supreme Court Justice. It should be done by the next elected President.

Agreed

What happens if there is a tie in the Senate for a confirmation of a Cabinet role ?
Does it fail or the VP breals the tie?

I believe the VP would break the tie, unless of course the vote is on the VP in which case, hmm

Since I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post directly into the bill discussion thread, I'm posting here to pester you guys on updating the constitution to allow proper regulation of ballots. Right now as per the SC ruling, very few regulations are not allowed and certainly not the update within the Ballot Integrity Act being discussed.

If you guys don't do this, you're encouraging another chaotic election. The last thing Atlasia needs is another contested election that goes to the Supreme Court.

So again I propose my amendment, which should cover all the necessary regulations (which would have to be passed by Congress/states):

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=208051.msg5404124#msg5404124

I have introduced the bill to the Senate. :)

Will there be a confirmation thread for DKrol?

I was under the impression that was the VP's job--I shot rpryor a PM and the thread will be up as soon as we can figure out what's going on.

The Universal Healthcare and Affordability Act seems to be very complex. I don't understand how that system works. I would prefer government single payer for most health coverage.

There was a constitutional amendment passed by the House on language during voting:

While personally I don't see why someone would go to the trouble of changing language of ballot and find it more trouble than fun, I oppose this amendment. For some voting in another language is fun or creative and want to be able to do it. It seems people don't want boringness impose on them. We need citizens to vote and accept their creativity so they have fun participating.

I also don't know if it is applicable. If a candidate has a letter like é or ä in his name it could be ruled as not English.

It's an interesting point that you make and there should maybe have been some more clarity in the bill to determine what constituted "an English language ballot". Some names change in different languages, some don't and typing errors could effectively make the vote a different language depending on the word (such as "bleu" instead of "blue"):

For example, with my username in different Latin script languages:
English = Clyde1998
French = Clyde1998
German = Clyde1998
Italian = Clyde1998
Spanish = Clyde1998
Gaelic = Chluaidh1998 (technically only translates if you put "Clyde 1998" :P)

Although, if I took North Carolina Yankee:
English = North Carolina Yankee
French = Caroline du Nord Yankee
German = Nordkarolinische Yankee
Italian = Carolina del Nord Yankee
Spanish = Carolina del Norte Yankee
Gaelic = Carolina a Tuath Yankee

The question really should be: can the name be easily identified? The amendment was made after a vote was made in a non-Latin script language that everyone was forced to translate to identify what it was.  I could, personally, work out that if someone had voted using the name "Nordkarolinische Yankee" that it's probably a vote for North Carolina Yankee.

Is it time for another PPT election?

Isn't it also March 3rd?

That would probably be it, then. Whoops.

rules are linked in the Noticeboard for both chambers, have been since I was VP in December. ;)

I find the Make the Atlasia federal government more effcient amendment introduced in the House interesting. At the constituional convention some people expressed concern about adding another layer of government, that by having two legislative chambers it would slow down the process, that it was not practical for the game. Turns out they were right, but bicameralism was adopted even if it was a divisive issue and was narrowly adopted. Also this amendment seems to reduce the number of legislators in Nyman. That is a good step since there are too many offices in Nyman.

At least there was an effort to defend bicameralism in the Make the Atlasia federal government more efficient amendment. Explains the theory behind it. Better than argument at the constituional convention. 


The convention fell for it not listening to the voices of the practicality. Making the legislative process more complicated and slow. When I look at the government board, I have a hard time knowing what passed one chamber and is on the verge of becoming law if the other adopt it or what is just starting in the legislative process. I have a harder time to follow what is going on.

The other issue was the number of offices. With the two chambers, there are more offices in Nyman so the reduction in the total number of seats was smaller. It makes it more difficult for regions to have a good number of players for regional assemblies.

I had to count the vote in the convention and it looks like it was 9 for bicameralism, 7 for unicameralism, 2 absentations and 1 expressing reservations but not even voting. A very divisive plan and vote.   

The bills passing each chamber are listed at the bottom of this post: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260022.msg5556788#msg5556788

When they pass both chambers, they are put in the list at the very bottom and sent to the President. If you see a bill before the house or Senate, if it passed the other chamber, it will be in its respective list in that post.

Reading a suggestion made in Amending the federal electoral Act in the Senate

Would this deny the right to vote for persons not residing in a region for 168 hours, in the new region, the old region and federal election 168 hours after a move between region ? It's probably not the intent.

I'm in favor of wording that article for it to describe what it takes to have the right to register to vote instead of formulating it right to vote can't be denied. It would save lisitng all cases when a vote could be not counted. The article doesn't have to specify activity requirement with a number, it could be specified in legislation.

The House Voting rights amendment will make a big paragraph in the Bill of rights. I would prefer if the reasons to reject a ballot was in leggislation and not in that place. Even if I tend to agree with the reason, this could be seen as being boring and killing the fun for people with creativity (such as writing in another language) or throwing away too many votes (if a voter writes all candidates are great on a ballot or rank a candidate number 999 and is deemed campaigning because it's negative towards a candidate).

I see no problem making an activity requirement for all Atlasia, a minimum residency to become a voter for all Atlasia and an agreement between all regions on requirements for voters moving regions. Try and keep it simple.     

     Thanks for bringing this up, Poirot. This is going to be a bit of a tough nut to crack.

The intent is so we can make laws to keep people from moving a bunch of people into a new region the day before an election. Of course you can move regions and still vote in a federal election. The actual restrictions are in the statute (see I'm amending that as well in the legislation), the Constitution is simply being changed to allow for that statute to exist in the context of the recent court ruling.


I'll repeat: the actual restrictions are in the statute, the Constitution is simply being changed to allow for that statute to exist in the context of the recent court ruling.


Well the court disagrees. Are you really suggesting we go against the court's ruling? :o

Keeping the same wording "vote shall not be denied, except" forces us to include all possibilities to reject a ballot in the Bill of Rights.

I would like to only list the rules and cases for valid and invalid votes in legislation and not in the constitution. So section 4 would not be about the undeniable right to vote. It could be about votes cast shall be counted if they respect legislation on voter registration and filling ballots, or about earning the right to vote, for example citizens become registered voter after 7 days in Atlasia and their vote is valid if respects all legislation on voter eligibility and valid ballot.       

On the Absentee voting act, since a citizen could vote after the declaration period is over


for the House election, is the only possibility for voting then on Thursday ? One day is better than none but it is a short period.

Since the declaration period is 24 hours before the election, I suppose it would be.  I think we should explore shortening the deadline for candidacy declarations (excluding write-in campaigns) so that people have more time to consider how they are going to vote before the election occurs.  I will likely introduce new legislation establishing a 72-hour window and amending the absentee voting bill accordingly if it passes.

On the previous page in a post from last year I commented on the absentee voting being too restrictive.


I would let a voter vote before the end of declaration if the voter can't vote on the Thursday either. If a candidate waits until the last minute to declare it's not the voter's fault.   

There is already a section on absentee voting in the Federal electoral Act. It was signed by President Leinad in July 2016.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=239985.msg5222791#msg5222791 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=239985.msg5222791#msg5222791)


I think it contradicts the proposed absentee voting act because you can't vote absentee and in regular election.

I will be on the leave of the Senate until Tuesday evening.

Again, I must apologize for my absence over the last few days. I'm settling into my grad school now, so I should have a pretty reliable schedule.

I have some questions about the Foreign Relations Review, the creation of which is specified in this Act: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=253166.0. Because about 3/4 of a year has passed since the Act was passed, and the Secretary of State has still not submitted such a review to Congress, I've been wondering if such a review is even still being developed. Do any of you, my fellow colleagues in the Senate, know if this is still being developed by the SoS, and if so, do any of you have any idea of when the SoS will submit this review to Congress?

I asked this question during the present SoS's confirmation hearing, but don't remember getting an answer. I know Ted was working on completing the FPR at the time of his resignation, but IIRC it was not particularly close to being done. I have no idea if anyone has done any work on it since June.

Last I heard about the Foreign Relations Review, Ted was just about done with it.  I have a link to the Google Doc, but I will not post it here without executive permission.

Come to think of it, does Snowguy even have this link?  This should have been managed immediately after his confirmation if not before the hearing.

There is the Top Secret Classification Act up in the House right now:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=273230.0 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=273230.0)

Who is included in Cabinet for the sharing of information. Is the Registrar general included? th national archivist? The assisant secretary of elections?

I prefer when all people have all the information otherwise what is the point of trying to follow and judge what is going on. I hope there is not much private info kept from the players not in office.

I'm against the part with private trial to share this secret information. By the time there is a trial the information will be old and if you are really going to put on trial someone divulging an information, do it all in public. I hope this is a part of a law that is put on the books for show but with no intention of being followed.

I have a question about how we're handling the foreign policy review and the war resolutions that are on the floor of both the House and Senate. How exactly does that work? Like what happens if there are different amendments proposed in the House than the Senate or if the Senate amends but not the House? Isn't it supposed to start in one chamber then go to the other and get sent back if amended?

This process question should be answered.

It's been five days. Some would say people are not paying attention....
Even if the question has been answered privately, the public should get an answer. It's better to try and educate the public than just claim afterwards you don't know how things work. If there is no answer in 48 hours there could be a nuclear war in some part of the world, something like that.

Boom!
Maybe other people are interested in the answer but I give up waiting.

Look I have said it before, and I will say it a million times. If someone has not responded within a day or two, PM them the link to the thread. Especially in this case since:

1. This thread is a pre-reset hold over that is thoroughly obsolete. I even included it in a list to be unstickied, but it never was a long time ago, so that the VP could replace it with one open for both houses.


2. Because of Number 1, This thread only pertains to the Senate and therefore I have generally not kept up with it from a House perspective.

Please don't pontificate about waiting for a response in a dead thread without even PMing anyone in a position to give you an answer, or even posting it in the debate threads where people would actively see it and respond. As many are aware Scott has been going through some difficult times lately, therefore he probably hasn't been keeping up with this thread most likely and therefore the lack of response.


But to answer the question, there is nothing that stops us from debating bills simultaneously. We did it with Healthcare and the Budget Process and Control Act. It is perfect for dealing with emergency situations where it is time sensitive and we don't have time to wait for both Houses to act in serial fashion. It also works good for bills that are big projects as well since it gets all the issues blocking a majority from being achieved out in the open in both houses, they can be addressed and passage achieved in a timely fashion. This enabled healthcare to succeed compared to the Right to Life Act a year prior, which kept getting bounced back and forth and ultimately died.

The only requirement is that final bill has to pass both houses, and the vice President is the arbiter of that and making sure that the bill text (contained only within the inner quote box, since the out box contains chamber specific material like House/Senate bill, and vote links etc), is the same one that passed both chambers before being passed to the President for a signature or veto.

All amendments are tracked in each chamber. And Scott and I frequently communicate about bills that present in both chambers simultaneously. Often times we are sponsors in each house for said bills like with Healthcare, Budget Process and Control and finally, the FRR. The War declaration was the only one that wasn't like that and that is because Truman wrote the bulk of it, instead of me.

Thanks for the explanation.

I disagree that the thread is obsolete. The title could be changed to Senate and House or Nyman general discussion. The question involved the Senate so it was the right place to ask.

The question was not directed at one individual. Anybody could have replied with the information (white house, senators, house members, Cabinet) and it's better to do it in public rather than pm so everyone can learn how things work.

This thread is to favor citizen participation. It would be a mistake to remove it since public participation is already low. I don't know if it's too much to ask for some federal officeholders to check this thread from time to time to see citizens comments, concerns and questions.   

I didn't say remove it, I said remove and replace with one for both houses. :P Please come down off your high horse long enough to read what I said, and not what you want to think I said.

Creating a new thread would also draw attention to the fact that it has been updated and therefore people should pay attention to it.

     I have created just such a thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=274925.0). :)