Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 19, 2014, 06:49:40 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  The Strategic Registration Amendment [Passed to Regions]
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Print
Author Topic: The Strategic Registration Amendment [Passed to Regions]  (Read 7906 times)
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18360
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #100 on: October 17, 2009, 08:32:11 pm »
Ignore

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


"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
-Jackie Robinson
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16740
United States


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: October 18, 2009, 04:52:26 am »
Ignore

2 Ayes, 3 Nays, 1 Abstaining..

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

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: October 18, 2009, 05:51:59 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9802
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: October 18, 2009, 06:11:54 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9331
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

View Profile
« Reply #104 on: October 18, 2009, 06:12:35 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

people suck
Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9802
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: October 18, 2009, 06:20:58 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9331
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

View Profile
« Reply #106 on: October 18, 2009, 06:22:22 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged

people suck
Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9802
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: October 18, 2009, 06:28:53 am »
Ignore

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

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9331
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

View Profile
« Reply #108 on: October 18, 2009, 06:33:02 am »
Ignore

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

people suck
Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9802
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: October 18, 2009, 06:57:20 am »
Ignore

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

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22117
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: October 18, 2009, 10:06:37 pm »
Ignore

Nay
Logged
MaxQue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8788
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: October 18, 2009, 11:58:39 pm »
Ignore

Aye
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18360
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: October 19, 2009, 11:39:35 am »
Ignore

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


"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
-Jackie Robinson
Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9802
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: October 19, 2009, 11:52:06 am »
Ignore

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

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4418
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

View Profile WWW
« Reply #114 on: October 19, 2009, 02:55:52 pm »
Ignore

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.
http://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

A Republican - at least for a little while
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16740
United States


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: October 19, 2009, 04:43:04 pm »
Ignore

3 Ayes, 5 Nays, 1 Abstaining. This amendment has failed, debate continues.
Logged

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29583
United States


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: October 19, 2009, 05:03:37 pm »
Ignore

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.
http://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

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9331
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

View Profile
« Reply #117 on: October 19, 2009, 05:04:14 pm »
Ignore

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.
http://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

people suck
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29583
United States


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: October 19, 2009, 05:08:43 pm »
Ignore

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.
http://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

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16740
United States


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: October 20, 2009, 04:52:27 pm »
Ignore

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
Logged

Rowan
RowanBrandon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6714


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

View Profile
« Reply #120 on: October 20, 2009, 04:58:33 pm »
Ignore

Enthusiasticly AYE
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22117
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: October 20, 2009, 05:19:51 pm »
Ignore

Nay
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16740
United States


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: October 20, 2009, 06:14:48 pm »
Ignore

On second thought, I change my vote to Aye.
Logged

tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18360
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #123 on: October 20, 2009, 06:24:50 pm »
Ignore

Aye
Logged


"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
-Jackie Robinson
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29583
United States


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: October 20, 2009, 06:26:38 pm »
Ignore

Aye
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



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


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines