SENATE BILL: Fair Deregistration Rights Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Averroës Nix

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to advocate for this bill.

[MaxQue]

I'm not a Senator (for the moment), but I remember why we deleted the possibility of deregistration, a few years ago. In short, someone (Sam Spade) which was an incumbent senator, deregisted just before the election and got preferences (and would have won), but the dSoFA refused to count them and the deregistered winner registered back and claimed to have won the seat. See courtcase here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=78060.0

Deregistration was unanimously passed by the 11th Senate and unanimously repealed by the 26th Senate.

Measures to make sure than this problem doesn't happen must be taken or else, something will happen again and Senate will repeal it again, bring it back later, etc...
There is obvious possible issues, so Senate should solve them and doing things right on the first (well, the second, now) time.

Now, you can expell me from this room without problem.

[MaxQue]

No, clause 3 doesn't solve the heart of the problem.

Does votes received by a deregistered person are valid? Two answers are possible.
1. Yes. So, the deregistered person is elected and, so, the seat is vacated.
2. No. Votes are reattributed to the next preference or are invalid/exhausted if there is no next preference.

Each case is leading to a different election winner.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The key problem of that court case was the (insane) conclusion that the Sam Spade that deregistered was not the same legal person as the Sam Spade that re-registered, which the crux of this bill is built on disagreeing with. I don't think there's anything we can do aside from have another court battle and hope there's a different conclusion. It was one of the worst court decisions, IMO.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's interesting though. As any good GOTV operative knows, people who don't want to vote can still be convinced to vote if you work hard enough.

I fear that people who have "soft" involvement with Atlasia may end up just deregistering even if there's a spot for them in the game. Usually you can tell who's totally done with Atlasia, and these "soft participants" don't fit into that category. The people who are actively against participating can make that very clear if they're serious about it. I guess I don't see the need for institutional change.

[MaxQue]

The case of someone deregistering during an election wasn't solved.

What happens is someone retires after having voted?
What if some guy deregister during an election? Votes he received are valid or not?

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, we just disallow deregistration during, and 24 hours before and after, an election. Easy enough?

[MaxQue]

So, we just disallow deregistration during, and 24 hours before and after, an election. Easy enough?

It's an elegant way of solving that problem.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Alter that a bit to specifically state "Citizens shall not be permitted to deregister during an election they are eligible to participate in," since it wouldn't exactly be fair to prohibit a Southerner from deregistering while there's a Mideast Assembly race going on, or something. Otherwise, great.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The suggested change has been made. Just to head off any potential problems, are we sure that there aren't any regions in which someone could technically run for office without being eligible to vote? I know that the Northeast had an issue with non-Northeasterners being elected to the Assembly a year or two ago.

Maybe. I do remember that problem, it was during the brief time I was a member of the NE and I think we elected a Midwesterner or something. That's a possible wrinkle in this system, but I hesitate to include some sort of extra safeguards against that here, since it's really a separate issue that shouldn't be happening in the first place.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

While Senator Nix and I strongly disagree on whether to create a Do Not PM registry, this bill is a solid piece of game reform legislation and one that will have my support.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The DO not PM list has been tried before and didn't work. No one listened to it, and we cannot prosecute people for sending PMs as it infringes on free speech. This is a good bill and I would favor having a time period for when people may deregister mainly so it will not create a nightmare for homely and future elections where we have no idea who and who is not registered.

[Napoleon]

Of someone wants to deregister, they should stop voting. I agree with Hagrid and oppose this and any other form of deregistration "reform". The current system works.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A properly built deregistration system presents absolutely no harm. Opposing the creation of optional deregistration procedure is completely mindless and meanspirited. If someone wants remove themselves from the voter rolls I see no reason to prevent them from being able to do so except to try and "teach" them some sort of "lesson."

[Napoleon]

All this does is enable the crybabies. Deregister me, I am leaving forever!!! Then they come back in two weeks and want to run for President. Not on my watch.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So yeah, your opposition is based out of some sort of borderline psychotic attempt at teaching those evil "crybabies" a lesson. Forgive me for wanting a bit more of a reason to be swayed against this optional idea.

[Napoleon]

So yeah, your opposition is based out of some sort of borderline psychotic attempt at teaching those evil "crybabies" a lesson. Forgive me for wanting a bit more of a reason to be swayed against this optional idea.

uh no. Please read my posts before offering a lame response. I specified rather clearly that I agree with Senator Hagrid on this.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So yeah, your opposition is based out of some sort of borderline psychotic attempt at teaching those evil "crybabies" a lesson. Forgive me for wanting a bit more of a reason to be swayed against this optional idea.

uh no. Please read my posts before offering a lame response. I specified rather clearly that I agree with Senator Hagrid on this.

The argument being put against this is completely gross, regardless of however you want to spin it. You either want to keep the "crybabies" involved in Atlasia practically against their will, or want to badger people with PMs so often that they vote just to get you to shut up because the only other choice they have is endure months of harassment. That's insane.

[Napoleon]

AGain, no one is actually making that argument.

[homelycooking]

Not this "public post" thing again... Nix, could you amend the bill to stipulate that the public post must occur in the New Register Thread?

Otherwise, I can support a deregistration law so long as Section 2 is stricken from the bill and the deregistration is made to be immediate. If an individual chooses to be deregistered, he should be well aware of the permanence of such a decision and not permitted to vacillate on it. I'm concerned that citizens could repeatedly threaten to deregister themselves and then renege within seven days. Besides, they are not permitted to do that (renege within seven days) when they register anew.

I would also prefer that deregistration be made to last, at minimum, for a period of 180 days before re-registration.

[Marokai Backbeat]

AGain, no one is actually making that argument.

Hagrid's "worry" is that "soft participants" will deregister and he won't be able to get their votes anymore, and your argument was that so-called "crybabies" will deregister on irritated impulse. These two "concerns" are transparently political in nature. Especially Hagrid's, who is basically openly saying that there are people who would prefer to de-register, but can't, since they're locked in because they keep voting after getting effectively harassed into doing so and he's afraid they'll just up and leave because if we give them the option to do what they actually want to do they can't be made to stay here anymore. Stop and think about that for a second.

Not this "public post" thing again... Nix, could you amend the bill to stipulate that the public post must occur in the New Register Thread?

Otherwise, I can support a deregistration law so long as Section 2 is stricken from the bill and the deregistration is made to be immediate. If an individual chooses to be deregistered, he should be well aware of the permanence of such a decision and not permitted to vacillate on it. I'm concerned that citizens could repeatedly threaten to deregister themselves and then renege within seven days.

The "public post" thing is my fault, sorry about that. This bill was amended from an old proposal that was written prior to the specifying of the New Register thread. As for Section 2, would 48 hours be good? I agree 7 days is a very long time for a decision of this sort of permanence to renege on, but I feel like they should at least have a day or two.

Otherwise, I'm glad you're supporting this, Homely.

[homelycooking]

Marokai, 48 hours is certainly preferable to 7 days, but I think immediate deregistration would serve to ensure that only the people most committed to leaving the game permanently do so or even entertain the idea, and that it's not used for the purposes of jokes, threats or political manipulation.

Also, why 60 days as the term of deregistration?

[homelycooking]

Thank you, Nix, though I don't see why Amendment 3 shouldn't also include the "New Register Thread" stipulation.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Don't try and make it out that I'm the only person who benefits from zombie voters, Marokai. The fact is, they're a part of the game, and everyone needs them. My fear is, we'll have new members join up, sit on their asses for a month or two, complain that they've had nothing to do because they've sat on their asses, and then up and leave because it'll just be that easy. I'll be transparent—I want their votes. So do you. But I think it's also important to realize that people can and will leave for avoidable reasons. Had someone actually engaged those new players and led them around, things might have turned out differently. They could have been active and contributing members. Unfortunately, not everyone has the time to reach out like that, and I think it would be unfortunate to have people deregister "just cuz."

Of course I understand cases like Paul Kemp—and now that he's made himself clear, I'd hope people will not PM him. That said, Atlasia is a commitment. It's not difficult to ignore PMs (I do it all the time ), so if someone wants to leave, they should go through the process. And you know? If they can be convinced to break their vow halfway through this process and vote, then maybe they weren't really good candidates for deregistration in the first place.

Plus, has anyone given thought to the unintended consequences of this measure? How easy will it be for Laborites to shoot messages off to ghost Federalists and encourage them to "deregister" days before an election? If these voters' level of apathy is such that their only involvement in Atlasia is voting, I can't say I think it would be hard to encourage them to completely deregister instead.