The Strategic Registration Amendment [Passed to Regions]
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:55:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The Strategic Registration Amendment [Passed to Regions]
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Passed to Regions]  (Read 11529 times)
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 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.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: October 18, 2009, 04:52:26 AM »

2 Ayes, 3 Nays, 1 Abstaining..

We can do better than 6/10, come on.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 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
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Absolutely.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 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.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 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.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 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, which I believe support my contention.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: October 18, 2009, 10:06:37 PM »

Nay
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,588
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: October 18, 2009, 11:58:39 PM »

Aye
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 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.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 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.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 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

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.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: October 19, 2009, 04:43:04 PM »

3 Ayes, 5 Nays, 1 Abstaining. This amendment has failed, debate continues.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 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

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. Smiley
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 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

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. Smiley

Yep Roll Eyes

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 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

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. Smiley

Yep Roll Eyes



I was hoping someone would catch that, preferably Marokai and not you though. Tongue
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 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
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Nay
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: October 20, 2009, 04:58:33 PM »

Enthusiasticly AYE
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: October 20, 2009, 05:19:51 PM »

Nay
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: October 20, 2009, 06:14:48 PM »

On second thought, I change my vote to Aye.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: October 20, 2009, 06:24:50 PM »

Aye
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: October 20, 2009, 06:26:38 PM »

Aye
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 12 queries.