IDS 2: Sjoyce's Fixer Amendment

[Dereich]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that this is a constitutional amendment. If it passes it goes to the voting booth to be approved by the voters.

[Velasco]

Not sure if the timing is appropriate, given the proximity of regional elections. However, if you want some opinions from a nearly gone legislator, I could give them.

[Donerail]

I believe GM Griffin also had various suggestions; I'll find those and add some.

[Dereich]

Not sure if the timing is appropriate, given the proximity of regional elections. However, if you want some opinions from a nearly gone legislator, I could give them.

Of course; your insights are always good.

[Supersonic]

I have no objections to most of this.

I would say that Article I, Clause 5 seems like a hashed attempt to 'make everyone happy' and I wouldn't be a fan of splitting a legislators term in half. Especially if once the handover period arrives, said previously elected candidate doesn't want to take up his office or has become inactive. Saying that, I'm not sure there is a better way to resolve tie solutions, and the case of a 'double election tie' is very rare as it is.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of direct democracy, though I'm willing to go along with the initiative system proposed in Article III if the signature threshold is increased. If a mere three voters can call for a referendum, the legislative process will quickly freeze up, especially in a polarised region such as the South, and it also raises the question of 'what is the point of a representative democracy'.

[Donerail]

I have no objections to most of this.

I would say that Article I, Clause 5 seems like a hashed attempt to 'make everyone happy' and I wouldn't be a fan of splitting a legislators term in half. Especially if once the handover period arrives, said previously elected candidate doesn't want to take up his office or has become inactive. Saying that, I'm not sure there is a better way to resolve tie solutions, and the case of a 'double election tie' is very rare as it is.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of direct democracy, though I'm willing to go along with the initiative system proposed in Article III if the signature threshold is increased. If a mere three voters can call for a referendum, the legislative process will quickly freeze up, especially in a polarised region such as the South, and it also raises the question of 'what is the point of a representative democracy'.

The part in Article I, Clause 5 has been there since forever; the portion we'd add is "Tie votes in any election shall be resolved under the procedures set out in the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act Sections 2 to 4 unless the Legislature shall provide otherwise by law."

I agree with you as to the problem with three voters - that's why the amendment would up it to 15%.

[Supersonic]

I have no objections to most of this.

I would say that Article I, Clause 5 seems like a hashed attempt to 'make everyone happy' and I wouldn't be a fan of splitting a legislators term in half. Especially if once the handover period arrives, said previously elected candidate doesn't want to take up his office or has become inactive. Saying that, I'm not sure there is a better way to resolve tie solutions, and the case of a 'double election tie' is very rare as it is.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of direct democracy, though I'm willing to go along with the initiative system proposed in Article III if the signature threshold is increased. If a mere three voters can call for a referendum, the legislative process will quickly freeze up, especially in a polarised region such as the South, and it also raises the question of 'what is the point of a representative democracy'.

The part in Article I, Clause 5 has been there since forever; the portion we'd add is "Tie votes in any election shall be resolved under the procedures set out in the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act Sections 2 to 4 unless the Legislature shall provide otherwise by law."

I agree with you as to the problem with three voters - that's why the amendment would up it to 15%.

Fantastic. Though might I suggest 20% as a figure for the initiative system.

15% is still rather low. Though considerably better than a mere three voters.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article II

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article III

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IX

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Here is the bill with boldings and strikethroughs.

[Supersonic]

Ah, this makes more sense with the bolded/strikeout version.

[Dereich]

I don't think the article 1 section 6 change is necessary. Article 3 section 1 already allows for the Emperor to introduce legislation. No need to be redundant.

[Dereich]

Any more debate?

[Supersonic]

Not from me.

[Dereich]

This will now be brought before a vote. If this passes it will be need to be voted on by the public. Legislators have 48 hours in which they can vote aye, nay or abstain. The vote will also end if all have voted.

[Supersonic]

Aye.

[Hash]

Aye

[Dereich]

Aye

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Aye.

[Dereich]

With a vote of 3-0 with 2 not voting (Alfred's vote was late) this amendment passes and must now be voted on by the people to be ratified.