Senate Bill: Representative Democracy Amendment (Rejected)

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Napoleon

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Actually your going to administering this one, and more so then on the Stimulus bill, which was a rush job. I'll process the amendments, but you'll be conducting the votes on them.

That said, sincei t takes a Senator to this little thing, I will motion to table if the sponsor doesn't talk within 24 hours of it being brought to the floor.

[Napoleon]

This eliminates unnecessary and unused amendments regarding the "initiative" process and allows voters to make the tough choices in the ballot box. Fact is, the SoFE does not like this and does not want to enforce it, the public hasn't made use of it and shouldn't- they elect us to make laws on their behalf and they should vote us out if they don't like it. If policy is being made bypassing the Senate, there's no reason to vote against the friendliest faces.

[MaxQue]

Nonsense. I call the Senate to reject that lost of time and that power grab-out swiftly.

[Napoleon]

Nonsense. I call the Senate to reject that lost of time and that power grab-out swiftly.

It's not a power grab, Max. This can't pass without the voters themselves giving their approval. To suggest this is a power grab is nothing short of dishonest. I've proposed this because I believe that in real life, direct democracy has caused pretty significant problems for a variety of states (especially as a vehicle for anti-gay legislation- not that I expect much of that around here). Direct democracy means that elections have less consequence. It matters much less who I vote for if I can go around them and pass the bill I want anyway- but either way, people aren't even doing that. This process doesn't get used enough to make a difference and all it does is cause seriously tedious work for a hard working and dedicated SoFE that doesn't want to and shouldn't have to put up with it.

[MaxQue]

Nonsense. I call the Senate to reject that lost of time and that power grab-out swiftly.

It's not a power grab, Max. This can't pass without the voters themselves giving their approval. To suggest this is a power grab is nothing short of dishonest. I've proposed this because I believe that in real life, direct democracy has caused pretty significant problems for a variety of states (especially as a vehicle for anti-gay legislation- not that I expect much of that around here). Direct democracy means that elections have less consequence. It matters much less who I vote for if I can go around them and pass the bill I want anyway- but either way, people aren't even doing that. This process doesn't get used enough to make a difference and all it does is cause seriously tedious work for a hard working and dedicated SoFE that doesn't want to and shouldn't have to put up with it.

Well, we'll agree to disagree, then.

[Napoleon]

That's fine. To be honest, I expected you would be in opposition to this.

I just don't take kindly to being accused of attempting a power-grab. I've been consistent about these issues since I've been around, and for this amendment to become law, the people themselves will have to approve this. I hope you understand that my goals aren't to remove the people from the legislative process, but to encourage them to pay more attention to the Senate and stay in contact with their Senators. I do a lot of constituent outreach but I never really get feedback or suggestions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would anyone have a problem with a final vote since it is fairly simple proposal (love it or hate it type thing?), once the 72 hours expires this afternoon?

[Gass3268]

Isn't the Sixteenth Amendment the one that deals with initiatives? Seventeenth is the constitutional amendment decentralization amendment and the eighteenth is the "We nee more political parities" amendment.       

[MaxQue]

Isn't the Sixteenth Amendment the one that deals with initiatives? Seventeenth is the constitutional amendment decentralization amendment and the eighteenth is the "We nee more political parities" amendment.       

No, Sixteenth lowered the initiative requirement. Seventh created it.
So, that thing is returning the limit to create political parties at 5 and abolishing initiatives.

[DemPGH]

Are we ready to vote, are there questions, etc.? Seems like something you'd either be for or against. Resetting the thing to five people for a political party seems like it doesn't affect much (would any parties be affected?), and I mean, does anyone really think three people actually comprise a party? As for the other one, you either agree or disagree. There could be people without a strong opinion who could be persuadable, but they don't seem to have spoken up.

[Napoleon]

Did I mistakebly put the eighteenth?

[Gass3268]

Are we ready to vote, are there questions, etc.? Seems like something you'd either be for or against. Resetting the thing to five people for a political party seems like it doesn't affect much (would any parties be affected?), and I mean, does anyone really think three people actually comprise a party? As for the other one, you either agree or disagree. There could be people without a strong opinion who could be persuadable, but they don't seem to have spoken up.

I would prefer that we get the correct numbers.

Did I mistakebly put the eighteenth?

Yup...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None
Status: Vote tomorrow if none is given.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IIRC one of them did and it failed spectacularly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Probably not, though if the system was reformed to a larger extent, it's a possibility. I would support keeping the system but fixing it, in all honestly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Almost amendment vote time here if Nappy doesn't post soon.

[Napoleon]

Friendly

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

Ignore that last PM, Mr. VP.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In terms of engagement in Federal Lawmaking, has this ever been used?
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Regional_Legislative_Petitions_Act

I have had an informal process for four years for my constituents, that is much simpler, yet has only been used a handful of times. 

[bore]

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but repealing the 16th amendment would seem to only change how many signatures are required to launch an initiative setting it back to what it was previously. To repeal the whole thing (which I'm probably not in favour of) we would have to repeal the 7th as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think it does repeal the seventh as well.

[bore]

I'm an idiot- I thought it read seventeenth.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

To be fair, I have a decreasing level of faith in the initiative system. It was a decent idea... I'd be leaning towards abandoning it.