Secret Ballot Procedure Bill

[Emsworth]

I have a couple of concerns (not necessarily substantive, but more procedural) about this bill, and I hope that the Senate might address it. I haven't made up my mind about the actual underlying issue, as I feel that both sides have some very good arguments.

Firstly, isn't this a rather major piece of legislation for a lame duck Senate to be passing? I feel that it might carry more legitimacy if it were passed by the new Senate.

Secondly, I recall that the proposal to open diplomatic relations with other micronations received a great deal of attention, including a detailed investigation. As this proposed change is just as significant, if not more so, perhaps the Senate might consider creating a committee to investigate this matter, just as it did with the micronation debate. All Atlasians could perhaps express their views, and the Senate might decide accordingly.

[Emsworth]

Well it really wasn't a fillibuster, I support this bill.

Speaking of that amendment (which sought to place the District 4 and Southeast Senators higher), I wrote in the Legislation Introduction Thread:

"Might I suggest that we instead order Senators by seniority? The President pro Tempore would be the most senior Senator. The others would be ranked by length of service. If length of service is tied, then the tie would be broken by the order in which the oath of office was taken."

Ranking Senators by seniority for the purposes of this bill seems better than arbitrarily placing Senators on the basis of the regions and districts represented. Might I request a Senator to take up this suggestion and propose an amendment?

[Emsworth]

4(a).  If a voter who has given signature is not listed and a record of the vote cannot be obtained, the voter shall be granted the right to file a civil case against the members of the Committee for voting fraud.

4(b).  If five or more voters who have given signature are not listed and a record of the votes cannot be obtained, the Attorney General shall be granted the right to file a criminal case against the members of the Committee for voting fraud.

Let as assume that a few voters get together and decide to sign that they have voted without having actually sent a ballot. On what basis shall a court decide whether the fraud has been committed by the voters or by the committee members? What evidence could either side conceivably present?

[Emsworth]

Whistleblowers, I guess.  Somebody saying a little too much on AIM or Teamspeak.  That is how it works in the real world.

Okay, thanks for the response.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's all a part of the Forum Elite Conspiracy!

[Emsworth]

I would like to motion for a vote on King's amendment so it can be defeated voted on.

But it seems to have had minimal debate.

[Emsworth]

Yes, I would count the exchange between Joe Republic, King, and I as debate on it, so we need to wait until 24 hours has expired since the last bit of debate.

Not to be picky, but I was under the impression that any post by a Senator counts for the 24-hour rule. (I may be wrong, as the Procedural Resolution is quite complex, and I haven't mastered the whole thing yet.)

[Emsworth]

A mere formality: This bill is hereby reintroduced to the Senate floor.

Many Senators have suggested that secret balloting should also be considered by the Voting Reform Commission. Therefore, I invite any Senator who is inclined to do so to make a motion to suspend debate on this bill. Debate would recommence when the Commission reports.

[Emsworth]

There appears to be no debate on, or opposition to, the motion.

The question is on the motion suspend debate on the bill until the Voting Reform Commission's report is issued. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

With five Ayes, the motion is passed.

Debate on the Secret Ballot Procedure Bill is hereby suspended until such time as the Voting Reform Commission issues a final report.