Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[afleitch]

I'm not sure what to make of this bill. It's 'out there'; the idea of 'twinning' Senate seats in this fashion is, as far as I know unique to the western world. It doesn't appear to be have been raised publically and there have been no calls for a system like this to be implimented.

What we would essentially have as a bloc, a constituency, a grouping whatever you want to name it of regions who decided to 'share' Senators. Two regions could elect say 2 Senators (probably under STV) However this is done in an arbitary fashion by agreement between regions. It dilutes the power of each individual region (by agreement) and would do nothing to address the disproportionality when it comes to representation based on population in regional seats.

Hopefully Senators will recall that I proposed a system where each region elected a number of Senators in proportion to their population. There was concern that elected a small number of Senators (2 or 3) at the one time under STV was not viable. Personally I would contend that it is viable (given its application to Scottish local elections with success) and I am interested to see that it's being floated here.

So I take it electing small numbers of Senators using STV is fine If so then part of the opposition to my plan based on that contention has dissapated and I am free to introduce it before the current Senate It is a system which is fair to the principles of representation based on regions, based on population and based on proportionality.

[afleitch]

Marokai, also with respect to say my proposal does nothing to adress the 'distorting effect of regional elections' is odd. Tieing representation to population does exactly that. It means that a region of 20 and a region of 40 no longer elect the same number of Senators which regardless of whether you have one region or group them together would still exist under the status quo or this proposal. (two regions of say 20 and 20 could team and elect 2, two regions of 30 and 40 could team up and elect 2; so there would still be disproportionality) So under my plan no region has a 'distorting effect' as their representation and their strength would be based on population.

[afleitch]

IF we are going to do this (a very big IF), the regions involved should be allowed to enact any voting system they see fit.

I tend to agree, the whole point of this is actually let regions do what they want.

I agree to a point. But of course 'any voting system' could allow any system, even if it is distinctly undemocratic.

[afleitch]

What a depressing back and forth this has been.

[afleitch]

Regardless of what happens with this bill I still intend to introduce a Senate reform bill along what I've pushed for this past month in the next session (if I'm still here )

[afleitch]

Regional Self-Determination Amendment

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

Right; a quick look at this again before bed.

Given that this is a constitutional amendment this would, If I am reading this correctly allow Regions to decide on the election system but also on qualifications for election?

So we could have some posters eligable for one class of Senate seat but not another? As some Senate seats could be elected under one system and some under another, does this mean that a region could abolish democratic elections completely, or do so by default by tightening the qualifications for holding office?

Madness. The language needs to be tightened up if this is the direction the Senate wants to go.

[afleitch]

I don't think anyone would object to a clause mandating that Senators be elected democratically.

Likewise with 'qualifications' and what we mean by qualifying criteria as that could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything.

[afleitch]

Nay for the record.

This was one of the most...'odd' constitutional bills put before the Senate. The text of the bill has changed a few times and none has addressed what is to be gained by having 5 regional seats not only elected differently (which can be argued) but also with a difference in qualification

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

There is nothing to stop regions setting a ludicrously high, discriminatory or undemocratic bar on qualification. I am not assuming that any regions will...but theres nothing to stop them doing so.

[afleitch]

Nay for the record.

This was one of the most...'odd' constitutional bills put before the Senate. The text of the bill has changed a few times and none has addressed what is to be gained by having 5 regional seats not only elected differently (which can be argued) but also with a difference in qualification

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

There is nothing to stop regions setting a ludicrously high, discriminatory or undemocratic bar on qualification. I am not assuming that any regions will...but theres nothing to stop them doing so.

Along this line, the Pacific or Southeast could easily have the votes to set a party requirement for their regional senators.

Precisely.

The debate in this bill turned into a 'tit for tat' match between two factions playing the 'regional rights' card. This bill had nothing to do with that at all and I'm genuinely suprised that it passed as it was written. This bill has the potential to disrupt the democratic process.

As written it is a dangerous bill because of the potential that it can be used for partisan purposes to 'lock' out voters that the supermajority don't wish to represent them. DWTL's objections demanding a high threshold in regions was actually pretty reasonable given these concerns.