MA: Smaller Assembly Amendment (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 06:26:02 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
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  MA: Smaller Assembly Amendment (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: MA: Smaller Assembly Amendment (Passed)  (Read 1872 times)
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 03, 2012, 06:42:59 AM »
« edited: January 25, 2012, 07:15:20 PM by Assemblyman & Queen Mum Inks.LWC »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Sponsor: ZuWo
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2012, 08:19:52 AM »

We have debated the very same proposal a few months ago, and then decided to table it because it turned out there were more than 5 candidates who wanted to run for the Assembly. However, this seemed to be a unique ray of hope and now our problems are increasing; with the appointment of Tmth to the SoIA office and the election of TJ in Cleve to the Senate - undoubtedly two very positive events - the Assembly has shrunk to 3, and now, with the appointment of Cathcon, we are at 4 members. Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether there are any more people who are interested in serving the region. Even if we are lucky to find 5 citizens who want to become Assemblymen, it is hard to see any competitive elections for these 5 seats in the near future.

Therefore, I believe a reduction of the seats to just 3 is a viable solution. The drawbacks of this proposal have already been debated, both in the earlier Assembly thread and in the thread of the A-Bob Research Center poll. I am optimistic that we can solve the problems which a reduction to 3 seats can cause. For instance, we can set the threshold for a veto override higher by passing another amendment in order to prevent the Governor's signature or veto from becoming irrelevant. What can hardly be prevented in an Assembly that consists of 3 members, however, is the risk that one of the 3 members becomes inactive. Yet, I hope that when there are only 3 seats to be filled in an Assembly election only the most active candidates will be elected so that a scenario where the Assembly is hampered by one or even two inactive members will not become reailty.
Logged
California8429
A-Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,785
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2012, 04:07:24 PM »

Supported very much. There just isn't activity like there used to be. When we get a bunch of people eager to be in the Assembly again, then we can look at changing the law back to 5. Until then I say 3 is enough!
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2012, 06:38:08 AM »

I do intend on making a legislation that would account for an Assmebly based on the number of candidates who declare their candidacy.  Is this still something that the members  of the Assembly would be intereseted in?
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2012, 11:32:53 AM »

I do intend on making a legislation that would account for an Assmebly based on the number of candidates who declare their candidacy.  Is this still something that the members  of the Assembly would be intereseted in?

This sounds like a very good idea in general and I am curious to see specific details. Have you already made a rough draft?
Logged
big bad fab
filliatre
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,344
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2012, 06:29:09 PM »

I do intend on making a legislation that would account for an Assmebly based on the number of candidates who declare their candidacy.  Is this still something that the members  of the Assembly would be intereseted in?

This sounds like a very good idea in general and I am curious to see specific details. Have you already made a rough draft?

^^^^^^
I'd be interested to see the details.
The problem is that it seems to tackle more with the problem of a big crowd of candidates, not with a depleted scene. Or I don't see where you want to go.


Anyway, we MUST do something quickly. If I'm here again, that's only because the Mideast needs to fill the vacancy Tongue.
I don't inted to be a candidate again Wink.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2012, 09:02:44 AM »

I do intend on making a legislation that would account for an Assmebly based on the number of candidates who declare their candidacy.  Is this still something that the members  of the Assembly would be intereseted in?

This sounds like a very good idea in general and I am curious to see specific details. Have you already made a rough draft?

^^^^^^
I'd be interested to see the details.
The problem is that it seems to tackle more with the problem of a big crowd of candidates, not with a depleted scene. Or I don't see where you want to go.


Anyway, we MUST do something quickly. If I'm here again, that's only because the Mideast needs to fill the vacancy Tongue.
I don't inted to be a candidate again Wink.

I agree. We need to act relatively quickly. If we lose you because you don't want to run for re-election and me because I will be President (Tongue) our problems will only increase.

I can generally imagine that a bill which says something like "if we have 6 or more declared candidates, the Assembly shall consist of 5 members, if we have fewer than 6 declared candidates, the Assembly shall consist of 3 members" would make sense. However, if we cannot pass such a bill in the foreseeable future, it is wise to pass this amendment first.
Logged
big bad fab
filliatre
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,344
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2012, 09:21:17 AM »

ZuWo's proposal suits me.

Mr. Speaker ?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2012, 04:27:18 AM »
« Edited: January 17, 2012, 01:45:59 PM by Assemblyman & Queen Mum Inks.LWC »

Here's is a proposed amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2012, 07:38:56 AM »

I'm fine with that amendment.
Logged
big bad fab
filliatre
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,344
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2012, 02:55:11 PM »

I guess we should read "three" in the second sentence Tongue
Apart from this typo, I'm OK too if it can gain quickly a consensus.
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 #11 on: January 16, 2012, 02:58:44 PM »

I guess we should read "three" in the second sentence Tongue
Apart from this typo, I'm OK too if it can gain quickly a consensus.
Okay, good, you saw that too. Wink I was worried that I was just reading it wrong.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2012, 03:36:11 PM »

I guess we should read "three" in the second sentence Tongue
Apart from this typo, I'm OK too if it can gain quickly a consensus.

Shame on me, I didn't notice that error. And someone with such lousy reading skills wants to be President ...
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2012, 03:44:10 AM »

So I suggest the following amendment (merely correcting Inks' typo):

Article III, Section 1., Clause 2. shall be amended to read as follows:

The Assembly shall be composed of five members in an election where six or more candidates have made an official candidate declaration by the ballot deadline established in Article IV, Section 1., Clause 7. The Assembly shall be composed of three members in an election where five or less candidates have made an official declaration by the ballot deadline established in Article IV, Section 1., Clause 7. Members of the Assembly must be registered voters residing in the Mideast Region.
Logged
big bad fab
filliatre
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,344
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2012, 09:56:34 AM »

OK.
And I'm going to be a candidate just to be sure WE EVENTUALLY ADOPT THIS F***ING AMENDMENT ONCE AND FOR ALL ! Grin
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2012, 01:46:48 PM »

The typo has been corrected, and I'll bring this to a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.
Logged
big bad fab
filliatre
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,344
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2012, 01:56:29 PM »

AYE
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2012, 04:51:56 PM »

aye
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2012, 04:51:03 AM »

AYE
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2012, 07:15:02 PM »

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 0.  The amendment is passed and shall be voted on by the people.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,822


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2012, 06:45:23 PM »

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 0.  The amendment is passed and shall be voted on by the people.

As per the Constitution, voting will open next Thursday.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.224 seconds with 13 queries.