MA: Mideast Vacancy Amendment (Failed)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Mr. X

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Can you put this in bold/strikethrough format, please?

[ZuWo]

Can you put this in bold/strikethrough format, please?

That would be helpful, yes. But more generally, didn't we just debate and hold votes on these issues?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Can you put this in bold/strikethrough format, please?

That would be helpful, yes. But more generally, didn't we just debate and hold votes on these issues?

I'll fix the format sometime today.  Assemblyman DC Al Fine supported the Assembly amendment and opposed the Senate amendment.  The People never had a chance to vote on the Senate vacancy amendment.  I could just reintroduce the Senate portion separately if someone would change their vote so that The People actually have a chance to vote on how Senate vacancies should be filled (if I had to pick, I'd say this is the more important amendment since The People haven't even been given the chance to vote on it).  I'm also curious why Assemblyman DC Al Fine supported the Assembly vacancy amendment and not the Senate vacancy amendment.  If I simply reintroduced the latter without any changes, however, I suspect Speaker Inks would simply not open a thread for that on the grounds that it had just been debated.  Since The People weren't permitted to vote on the Senate amendment, I don't think one can even argue that the issue is settled.

[ZuWo]

We have just debated this issue at length so, frankly, I haven't got anything new to add. The People/Assembly voted on the two vacancy amendments and rejected them.

As for the now deleted part of your post in which you criticized my appointment of hifly15 all I can say is that it was my goal to appoint a moderate left-winger to a seat which is currently held by someone who also considers himself a moderate left-winger.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

We have just debated this issue at length so, frankly, I haven't got anything new to add. The People/Assembly voted on the two vacancy amendments and rejected them.

As for the now deleted part of your post in which you criticized my appointment of hifly15 all I can say is that it was my goal to appoint a moderate left-winger to a seat which is currently held by someone who also considers himself a moderate left-winger.

I admit that the Assembly vacancy amendment was defeated at the ballot box (I am willing to remove that part if the Senate section can get through the Assembly).  That said, we also debated Oldiesfreak's abortion restrictions at length and you sure seemed to have considered that matter settled once the bill passed.  However, The People clearly disagreed and they sent a powerful message to the bill's supporters when they struck down the legislation at the ballot box.  I only bring that up because I think it should serve as a reminder that the Mideast government is not always right about what The People want and that neither of our views on legislation have always perfectly aligned with those of our constituents.  Maybe I'm wrong and the Senate amendment would've failed, but they should be allowed to make this decision for themselves.  While I have quite a bit of respect for you, I have to say that it seems a bit arrogant to say that an issue like this is settled and unworthy of further debate when The People haven't been given a chance to make their voices heard.


I deleted the other section because I didn't want us to get sidetracked and have this become about Hifly.  This isn't about being unhappy with this appointment or that appointment, it is about putting power in the hands of The People where it belongs.  With all due respect to both you and Assemblyman-to-be Hifly, I have yet to see any evidence that he is not at the very least hyper-conservative on most social issues, but I'd love to be proven wrong.  I haven't seen much about his views on economics, so I can't really factor those into the calculation.  All I can go by right now are the extremely conservative positions he has staked out on social issues, the fact that he ran a somewhat inactive campaign, and that to my knowledge he has only voted for conservative candidates since joining.  My point in the deleted section, was that for no readily apparent reason, you seemed to abandon your practice of appointing the runner-up once control of the Assembly hung in the balance.  That resulted in a considerably more conservative Mideasterner being appointed than the runner-up (OAM) and could easily give the Federalists a de facto majority.  I hope I'm wrong about hifly's views, in which case I will gladly eat my words, but I don't think I am.

[ZuWo]

My main issue with all of these vacancy amendments is that they weaken the position of the Governor and Lt. Governor considerably. We have to keep in mind that the Atlasian political system is one of representative democracy combined with elements of direct democracy. In my view, our regional Constitution provides an excellent balance of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branch as well as the people. Favoring one of these four pillars of our democracy at the expense of another pillar is a mistake, in my opinion. If the people should always have the final say we can as well abolish the Assembly and follow the (failed) example of the Pacific and Midwest in creating a universal legislature where every citizen can vote on bills.

Regarding hifly15 I suggest we let him serve in the Assembly before we judge him. It seems almost everyone on the Atlasian left considers him a horrible conservative because of his stance on a single issue (gay marriage) that bears no relevance to Atlasia. He is a member of the Progressive Union and not the Federalist Party, and he described his views as rather left-wing.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My main issue with all of these vacancy amendments is that they weaken the position of the Governor and Lt. Governor considerably. We have to keep in mind that the Atlasian political system is one of representative democracy combined with elements of direct democracy. In my view, our regional Constitution provides an excellent balance of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branch as well as the people. Favoring one of these four pillars of our democracy at the expense of another pillar is a mistake, in my opinion. If the people should always have the final say we can as well abolish the Assembly and follow the (failed) example of the Pacific and Midwest in creating a universal legislature where every citizen can vote on bills.

Regarding hifly15 I suggest we let him serve in the Assembly before we judge him. It seems almost everyone on the Atlasian left considers him a horrible conservative because of his stance on a single issue (gay marriage) that bears no relevance to Atlasia. He is a member of the Progressive Union and not the Federalist Party, and he described his views as rather left-wing.

I would argue that vacancies should be filled by special election.  In the case of Assembly seats, The People disagreed.  However, I think The People should have the opportunity to make the decision regarding Senate vacancies.  If they think it should stay in the hands of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, they'll vote accordingly.  I don't get why people were opposed to even giving our constituents a chance to vote on the Senate Vacancy Amendment (especially when I know that there are at least some folks who opposed the Assembly Vacancy Amendment, but would've voted for the Senate one.

[ZuWo]

I think our Constitution is not designed in a way to ensure that the people should always have the opportunity to make the final decision on bills and amendments. Our Constitution explicitly states that only those amendments which are passed by the Assembly will be brought to a public vote so the argument that the people should always have the final say does not make sense to me. The Mideast, like the other Atlasian regions, is still a representative democracy, which means that the Assembly should make use of its right to take decisions on its own. Under the Constitution we have there is no moral obligation that constitutional amendments must be voted on by the people.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If not, I can tomorrow. It'd just be way too hard to do on my phone.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If not, I can tomorrow. It'd just be way too hard to do on my phone.

Do you think you could amend it to put it in strike/bold format?  I've been kinda busy lately, thanks

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think our Constitution is not designed in a way to ensure that the people should always have the opportunity to make the final decision on bills and amendments. Our Constitution explicitly states that only those amendments which are passed by the Assembly will be brought to a public vote so the argument that the people should always have the final say does not make sense to me. The Mideast, like the other Atlasian regions, is still a representative democracy, which means that the Assembly should make use of its right to take decisions on its own. Under the Constitution we have there is no moral obligation that constitutional amendments must be voted on by the people.

Why should The People be able to vote on the Assembly vacancy amendment and not the Senate vacancy one?  That question is first and foremost directed at Assemblyman DC Al Fine, but I'd be curious to hear your answer as well, Governor.  I know what representative democracy is, but I think on this particular issue, The People should make the decision.

[ZuWo]

Why should The People be able to vote on the Assembly vacancy amendment and not the Senate vacancy one?

Simply put, the people should vote on amendments that a majority of Assemblymembers support. If a member of the Assembly does not support a particular amendment, he/she should follow his/her conscience and vote accordingly. I don't think a member of the Assembly should vote in favor of an amendment against his/her convictions just to let the people have the final say. Otherwise debating a constitutional amendment in the Assembly becomes kind of pointless.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The bill now reads as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Article III, Section 6 of the Mideast Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

A slight amendment, for consistency's sake, I'd like the amendment to Art. III, Section 1, Cl. 6, adding c) to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

A slight amendment, for consistency's sake, I'd like the amendment to Art. III, Section 1, Cl. 6, adding c) to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amendment is accepted as friendly.

[DC Al Fine]

Can you put this in bold/strikethrough format, please?

That would be helpful, yes. But more generally, didn't we just debate and hold votes on these issues?

I'll fix the format sometime today.  Assemblyman DC Al Fine supported the Assembly amendment and opposed the Senate amendment.  The People never had a chance to vote on the Senate vacancy amendment.  I could just reintroduce the Senate portion separately if someone would change their vote so that The People actually have a chance to vote on how Senate vacancies should be filled (if I had to pick, I'd say this is the more important amendment since The People haven't even been given the chance to vote on it).  I'm also curious why Assemblyman DC Al Fine supported the Assembly vacancy amendment and not the Senate vacancy amendment.  If I simply reintroduced the latter without any changes, however, I suspect Speaker Inks would simply not open a thread for that on the grounds that it had just been debated.  Since The People weren't permitted to vote on the Senate amendment, I don't think one can even argue that the issue is settled.

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I didn't see your question the first time. My rationale is that it's easier for an inactive/trolling candidate to get elected in a by-election and that a terrible candidate is much more destructive in the Senate.  I can deal with a Sibboleth in the Assembly, but not a Napoleon in the Senate

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Can you put this in bold/strikethrough format, please?

That would be helpful, yes. But more generally, didn't we just debate and hold votes on these issues?

I'll fix the format sometime today.  Assemblyman DC Al Fine supported the Assembly amendment and opposed the Senate amendment.  The People never had a chance to vote on the Senate vacancy amendment.  I could just reintroduce the Senate portion separately if someone would change their vote so that The People actually have a chance to vote on how Senate vacancies should be filled (if I had to pick, I'd say this is the more important amendment since The People haven't even been given the chance to vote on it).  I'm also curious why Assemblyman DC Al Fine supported the Assembly vacancy amendment and not the Senate vacancy amendment.  If I simply reintroduced the latter without any changes, however, I suspect Speaker Inks would simply not open a thread for that on the grounds that it had just been debated.  Since The People weren't permitted to vote on the Senate amendment, I don't think one can even argue that the issue is settled.

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I didn't see your question the first time. My rationale is that it's easier for an inactive/trolling candidate to get elected in a by-election and that a terrible candidate is much more destructive in the Senate.  I can deal with a Sibboleth in the Assembly, but not a Napoleon in the Senate

But isn't that just as likely to happen when the appointed Senator is up for re-election?

[Hifly]

Can you put this in bold/strikethrough format, please?

That would be helpful, yes. But more generally, didn't we just debate and hold votes on these issues?

I'll fix the format sometime today.  Assemblyman DC Al Fine supported the Assembly amendment and opposed the Senate amendment.  The People never had a chance to vote on the Senate vacancy amendment.  I could just reintroduce the Senate portion separately if someone would change their vote so that The People actually have a chance to vote on how Senate vacancies should be filled (if I had to pick, I'd say this is the more important amendment since The People haven't even been given the chance to vote on it).  I'm also curious why Assemblyman DC Al Fine supported the Assembly vacancy amendment and not the Senate vacancy amendment.  If I simply reintroduced the latter without any changes, however, I suspect Speaker Inks would simply not open a thread for that on the grounds that it had just been debated.  Since The People weren't permitted to vote on the Senate amendment, I don't think one can even argue that the issue is settled.

Sorry for taking so long to reply. I didn't see your question the first time. My rationale is that it's easier for an inactive/trolling candidate to get elected in a by-election and that a terrible candidate is much more destructive in the Senate.  I can deal with a Sibboleth in the Assembly, but not a Napoleon in the Senate

But isn't that just as likely to happen when the appointed Senator is up for re-election?

Leave the debating chamber; You're a Senator now

And I request that this be put to a vote in the Assembly ASAP; it's absolutely pointless debating this hapless thing even further.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Actually, I was still an Assemblyman at the time

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We will now take this to a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Article III, Section 6 of the Mideast Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

NAY

[Hifly]

NAY

[DC Al Fine]

Nay

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 0, and the NAYs are 4, with 1 not voting.  The NAYs have it, and the bill has failed.