SENATE BILL: Trial, Not Turnout Amendment (Sent to the Regions)

[Franzl]

Abstain

[Niemeyerite]

Abstain, may change my vote if necessary

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

I can't really believe we're at the point where some think the Senate should have the sole and easy authority to impeach anyone they want. Christ, guys. Really? This body, which has made a ton of mistakes, constantly overlooks things, and is far too easily swayed in a landslide to one side of one issue or another depending on the month, should be entrusted with the ability to impeach anyone with a 2/3rds majority?

Please, guys. I know you hate Napoleon, but 7 people do not deserve that power. Not at all. We shouldn't have that power, and we don't deserve it, either.

It merely takes a simple majority in the public vote to impeach someone. If impeachment is truly deserved, that should be trivial to achieve.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

In light of Marokai's comments, I just want to make it clear that my abstention is not coming out of a desire to wait for Oakvale's return so he can defend the bill. I do share a lot of Marokai's concerns. That said, I also see some shortfalls in the current system. Thus, I've abstained. If the amendment has to go to The People, I am sure they will render an appropriate decision. If it does not make it to The People, I'm okay with that too.

[Napoleon]

I can't really believe we're at the point where some think the Senate should have the sole and easy authority to impeach anyone they want. Christ, guys. Really? This body, which has made a ton of mistakes, constantly overlooks things, and is far too easily swayed in a landslide to one side of one issue or another depending on the month, should be entrusted with the ability to impeach anyone with a 2/3rds majority?

Please, guys. I know you hate Napoleon, but 7 people do not deserve that power. Not at all. We shouldn't have that power, and we don't deserve it, either.

It merely takes a simple majority in the public vote to impeach someone. If impeachment is truly deserved, that should be trivial to achieve.

At least he's trying to do something this time he got elected? I don't know.

[Franzl]

I have been swayed by Senator Marokai's arguments.

I change my vote to NAY.

[Niemeyerite]

I'm leaning nay (from the beginning), but I'd like to wait for Oakvale

[Simfan34]

Aye!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oakvale, if you plan to do something, do it in the next 24 hours or your window of reprieve will close on this.

[Oakvale]

*bursts through church doors, breathless*

I objec—er, not so fast, Yankee!

I apologise sincerely for my absence - my WiFi kicked the bucket earlier in the week, briefly worked when I replaced my modem on Tuesday, and then... died again until I got the overpaid tools at my ISP to come to my house and fiddle around with some cables.

I've read the concerns, many of them valid and worth debating, mentioned in this thread and hope we can postpone a final vote until we consider some changes. I really don't want this to die, not yet. While there's obviously several Senators who are opposed to the very principle of my poposal, I hope I can sway enough people to at least send this to the regions.

With the complaints mentioned in mind, I move to postpone the vote, and propose an amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really want to try and get something like this passed, and I'm more than willing - eager, even! - to compromise as much as is necessary.

I'd be open to giving the Supreme Court a more active role - although that could prove problematic were we impeaching a Justice - but I think a good place to start if it would make it more palatable is from Mr. Kingman's idea -

If the Senators are similarly concerned, I'd recommend amending the bill to delay the impeached officer's removal for, say, 72 hours, and then allowing a "check" on the impeachment to be possible during that time frame, which if happens makes a public poll mandatory before the officer's removal. The "check" could be something like, official requests from 3 or 4 regional legislatures or governors, a petition with X% of registered citizens signing it, or something else to that effect.

Thoughts?

To address some of the concerns raised -

I can't really believe we're at the point where some think the Senate should have the sole and easy authority to impeach anyone they want. Christ, guys. Really? This body, which has made a ton of mistakes, constantly overlooks things, and is far too easily swayed in a landslide to one side of one issue or another depending on the month, should be entrusted with the ability to impeach anyone with a 2/3rds majority?

You have much less faith in the Senate than I do. I'm pretty confident that as flawed as this body often is, it's nonetheless - usually! - a group of active, engaged members who are aware of what's going on in Atlasia. My fear is if we ever do see an impeachment election, because that's what they are - that hordes of zombie voters will be turned out by whichever party machine is running at its highest capacity and return the offending officer to power, probably even by a comfortable margin.

I just don't find this arugment very convincing. We give the Supreme Court, which is just three people, easily swayed to a landslide to one side of the issue, who make mistakes, etc, etc, etc the power to ban people from holding office and voting - perhaps you'd prefer we make all trials public, since the same logic surely applies.

I'm optimistic that if this amendment were to pass the Senate the members considering the charges would do so with solemnity and sober judgement. The same cannot be said for a national election.

I can't stress this enough - Atlasia does not have impeachment trials. We effectively have recall elections. That's fine, but if we want recall elections then let's actually legislate for recall elections, not pretend that our impeachment process is something entirely different, becuase it's not.

Frankly, the only way I'd be happy with the current system is if we had anti-zombie voter laws, but those are, obviously, genuinely impossible to design, let alone enforce, so hence this amendment. I don't want people who aren't active in Atlasia, who don't even know the issues, voting on whether one of our Cabinet officers remains in their job. It's like ex-pats voting on things that don't concern them, but have a big impact on those of us who actually remain in the country.

Please, guys. I know you hate Napoleon, but 7 people do not deserve that power. Not at all. We shouldn't have that power, and we don't deserve it, either.

This is nothing to do with Napoleon. Well, I guess it kind of is since it's largely inspired by his Cabinet officers neglect of their duties, but I don't believe for a second that the 'people' - which is, let's face it, largely composed of people who don't take any part in Atlasia or even know who most of these Cabinet officers are - are more prepared and capable of reaching a proper conclusion to an impeachent trial than a Senate that can actually observe the behaviour of the Cabinet firsthand.

It merely takes a simple majority in the public vote to impeach someone. If impeachment is truly deserved, that should be trivial to achieve.

Senator, I respect your opinion on this, and know neither of us is going to convince the other, but do you honestly believe that, for example, a JCP President in the old days would ever have been impeached?

At least he's trying to do something this time he got elected? I don't know.

Rich irony given the reason for this amendment is half of your Cabinet, erm... not doing anything.

Friends, colleagues, please hear me out.

I know this is a controversial debate, but I firmly believe this is good legislation that I want to improve with your help and input.

The name of the amendment is important. Trial, not turnout. If you believe that we should put people on trial by letting political parties turn out their zombie voters without considering the issues and allegations at hand, by all means vote against this, and do so without hesitation.

But if you think that impeachment is something that should be considered by people who've worked with the Cabinet, who are aware of the issues, and can conduct - most of the time - a reflective and intelligent debate, then please consider lending this your support. I do not think the Senate is perfect, but I think we are, at least, better equipped to deal with these situations than masses of anonymous voters with no stake in Atlasia.

I apologise again for my unexpected if unavoidable absence, and humbly ask that you work with me to improve and modify this amendment.

...and, hell, if you think the people should decide impeachments, then why not let them... decide whether they should decide impeachments by sending this to the regions?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Impeachment proceedings work differently in Atlasia because Atlasia is a different beast. We don't have a Senate of 100, we have a Senate of 10, and they are easily swayed. A few partisans and a couple guys with a grudge, and suddenly you have the Senate deciding who can and can't stay in office all on their own, and that's too much power for a body that gets it wrong with the frequency that it does.

Yeah, the Supreme Court is 3 guys that have the most power in this game, but when we make new appointments, we don't pick Joe Sixpack off the street, they have to be qualified and go through an arduous process to get confirmed. When Lief was deciding who to appoint to the Senate, and Franzl and I were interested, we had to fill out lengthy forms and answer a ton of questions before I even got to a confirmation hearing. Senators, no offense to the rest of us, don't have to hold up to very high standards to get elected, and for most of us, getting elected ain't that hard.

You can get to be a Senator on the basis of very little to nothing, but you can't do that as a Supreme Court Justice; at least, in theory, I suppose Justice Opebo might make you think twice, but, he's also a pretty good justice. In a body where the different between a supermajority and a simple majority is one guy, the possibility for abusing that power is horrendous, and I don't want every single administration from here on out to have a bunch of impeachment proceedings because a few Senators hold a grudge. Administrations get bogged down in nonsense enough as it is.

I don't hold any hard feelings here, because I know this effort is coming from a very genuine place; I'm not happy with Napoleon or much of his cabinet either, and I know there need to be some changes, but I'm increasingly concerned with how this Senate just seems to want some sort of legislative supremacy as if we're a parliament or something.

The public vote used to be a simple majority in the Senate and two thirds of the public to get an impeachment. Purple State and I swapped those two when we rewrote the constitution because we understood it's much easier to get Senate votes than public votes. We're talking about a simple majority of voters to impeach someone. Impeachment should only be done in extreme circumstances, and if those circumstances are appropriately extreme, a simple majority should be easy to get.

Here's a change I can support, if you don't think I'm being constructive enough: Maintain the current impeachment process, but add an extra clause to it that bypasses the public vote if the Senate is unanimous in an impeachment vote, but if it's not, the public vote stands. I don't think you'll find any argument that much of Napoleon's cabinet needs changing, and that's a way we can accomplish the immediate problems without the potential abuse.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am in generous mood because of the festive spirit of the holidays (actually not really considering our only car broke down yesterday and left us in a bit of tight spot) and am impressed with the substantive back and forth we seem to be having here, thus as such I am calling a halt to this vote. Senators have 72 hours to object.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could support this compromise, but other than that, I still agree that we shouldn't give ourselves more power than is due.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I propose an amendment (changes to the Constitution in bold):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

OAKVALE WHAT DO YOU THINK.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Seeing no objections, Oakvale's amendment has been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: No Entry
Status: In Limbo Pending Feedback.

[Oakvale]

The amendment is unfriendly. While Senator Marokai's proposal is a great improvement over the current system, it nonetheless does not address the principle my amendment is focused on - changing the impeachment system from one of competing turnout machines to one of a trial by Atlasia's strongest institution, the Senate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Either of the suggestions from Nix and Marokai would have my support.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm leaning toward supporting Senator Marokai's amendment, but I'm not entirely sure about it. I agree with Oakvale in principle, but this seems like an effective compromise (although I'd prefer requiring at least two dissents to trigger a public vote).

I'd rather take it slow and see how this change would affect the process before taking it further; but I'm not inherently opposed to the idea. I'd just prefer to take this one step at a time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.  

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[Franzl]

AYE

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.