Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Colin]

While I am still undecided on the overall legislation, I do have a problem with one part and would like to hear ideas before introducing an amendment. My problem is in regards to vacancies in Section 18 & 19.

Here is the point I brought up when this was first introduced:

if the guy who resigns is your first place vote, then you should have more of a say in his replacement than the guy who voted him last place, but by having a special election, the guy who has him last has equal say as the guy who voted him first.

Here are a list of procedures for dealing with vacancies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_affecting_the_Single_Transferable_Vote#Vacancies

I am leaning towards the count-back method, but would appreciate hearing input from others.

While countback is a nice feature and I wouldn't have any objections if the vacancy policy was changed to include the countback method I feel that there might be a problem if a candidate runs for a position and does well in the first election but then either quits Atlasian politics or leaves the forum entirely, in either an announced or unannounced fashion. What happens then if the winner vacates his seat and the now inactive Atlasian is the winner by the countback method? That is my only major problem with the method that you've described and I grant that the situation I present is rather far fetched, though not, of course, without precedent.

[Colin]

If person who would fill the next vacancy leaves, then go down the line. Now if we run out of persons then we do have a problem. Perhaps let that party select a replacement. Of course if the person is an independent, there is another problem that can occur. Perhaps either encourage voters to include extra write-ins or have some persons run as a "replacement candidate" in the election. Just throwing some ideas around.

Then again how do you know if the person has left the forum? I'm guessing there would have to be some sort of activity level set akin to what we currently do for elections, or, this is probably a better idea, why don't we just have to have the person who won the countback accept the position like people have to accept write-in candidacies now. This will get rid of problems with inactives possibly winning the election and with people who have been elected to some other position that they don't want to give up possibly winning the "by-election".

[Colin]

I feel that I need to speak on behalf of this reform. Out of all the reforms proposed by the administration this is, in my mind, one of the most needed. While STV is, in my mind, not as good as a simple party list system I think it will give Atlasia the same benefits which include stronger parties, more competitive elections and a new and exciting election procedure. The most important aspect of this bill is the institution of a system that would promote party growth, primaries, and the creation of a unified party system. The huge way of independents and the multitude of small parties, including the party I am currently in, have, in my opinion, reduced the quality of Atlasian elections. While we have always had a strong independent base in Atlasia the huge amount we have now is a symptom of an inactive and unappealing party system. Without a party system you don't have the same tension and the same cohesion in the Senate among party members nor do you have any sort of unified national campaign by the parties to try and see their candidates elected.

While a party list system would have rectified this better, in my opinion, than STV both work to the same end. The creation of a strong party system with primaries and internal debate which help to create a new dynamic for Atlasian politics. I would hope to see a more stable system and a system in which party leaders actually lead parties and mold both support and policy rather than take on another title without doing an work with it.

The second most important consequence of the implementation of Proportional Representation is that we will have a truely competitive race for a Senate seat. Instead of a two or, at most, three way contest for a single-seat district we could now have 7 or 8 people running for 5 seats or even more. Much like a Presidential contest the more candidates that are in the election the greater the amount of choice is for the individual voter. We will do away with unopposed races or elections between two candidates who do not fit what a majority of the voters want. Now voters will be able to choose between a wider array of candidates from around the entire nation rather than one or two from their own district.

Those are the two main reasons for supporting this bill. I see no downsides to a bill that will give us a stronger, more vibrant, and more active party system, I see no cons that could outweigh the possibility of great competition in elections, better satisfaction from the voters, and more exciting elections between a plethora of candidates. It's time to begin to change some of the basic structure of Atlasia in order to ensure that Atlasia remains new, interesting, and fun. If the best game becomes uninteresting after a while unless the gameplay changes, so why don't we take a little risk and try something new; try something that could help to improve Atlasia and give us back a little bit of that spark that gave our early experiences with this nation such a lasting appeal.

[Colin]

Another solution is to simply have a vacancy until the next election. In the current District system, that would mean an entire District going unrepresented, but in an STV system it just means the number of Senators falls from 10 to 9.

Yeeesssss... but if enough Senators resign during a given Senate, the Senate could well fall below its quorum.

I definitely agree with Al here. There have been times when we have had multiple resignations during the course of one Senate. This could cause major problems and begin to affect the composition of the Senate and the ability to actual conduct Senate business.

[Colin]

I have to agree with the esteemed Vice President, when you get down to it filling vacancies should not be something that should derail this amendment, the need for reform in the area of representation is more important than whether the method used for filling vacancies is countback or by-election. I don't really get what the big issue is here. In one sense I can't believe that, after many pages of debate, the main issue is filling vacant Senate seats. I guess I should be happy that people are squabbling mostly over this issue instead of passionately denouncing any effort for reform but to see this reform brought down by divisions over an extraneous issue such as this would be a blow to both this chamber and to the effectiveness of the entire Atlasian government.

[Colin]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

I don't think the government has any place (or ability) to dictate how the parties can or cannot select their candidates.

You mean in principle? If this is the way the Senate feels, then I will oppose Lewis' amendment as well.

I mean legally. I don't think the government can do that.

Legally it is not within the power of either the Senate or the DoFA to regulate internal party affairs. All that either can regulate is what constitutes a major party and what the benefits of being of such a said party are.

[Colin]

This vote is open until 1:09:19 PM tomorrow (for you Rob).

Has Rob even voted once in the past month? If he has he couldn't have voted more than 2 or 3 times.

[Colin]

This vote is open until 1:09:19 PM tomorrow (for you Rob).

Has Rob even voted once in the past month? If he has he couldn't have voted more than 2 or 3 times.

By my count, he's voted 15 times since August 19 (arbitrary date). Sam Spade, for comparison, has voted 30 times since then. Rob's not offered one shred of debate in that time, all of his posts are one word votes.

Although Rob has been inconsistent with his voting, there is nothing in the Senate rules that can force me to declare a person absent, and quite frankly I am loath to do so without such grants.  In order for the seat to become vacant, Rob must not vote or post on this board for 21 days.  He is far from meeting that measure.  An expulsion motion could be brought, but I doubt it has enough votes to pass.

It is, for lack of a better phrase, up to the voters of the Pacific to decide whether Rob's inconsistent voting warrants his return to the Senate.  That is, unless his absence reaches 21 days or an expulsion motion gains steam.

Well I was mostly asking because I was curious and not because I support an expulsion motion against him since I very rarely see a vote in which he has actually voted on something.

[Colin]

X Colin Wixted

This is a great day for Atlasia.