SENATE BILL: Proportional Representation Act Fix of 2014 (Sent to..Everyone)

[Cincinnatus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Talleyrand
Slot: Forum Affairs

[Adam Griffin]

I'll just leave my proposals for the revision of Section 3 here.

[quote]Section 3: Vacancies and Concessions

1. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason in a seat filled by Proportional Representation, a by-election shall be held on a nationwide basis in accordance with the terms outlined within the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (F.L. 14-2) and the Proportional Representation Act.

2. In the event of further such vacancies arising before the commencement of the by-election, a single by-election shall be held for all the vacant seats.

3. If there are less than three five weeks left in the term of a vacant seat filled by the Proportional Representation Act, where and the concerned ex-Senator is a member of major party at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit and. The party's leader shall inform the Senate of its decision.

4. Where (i) There are less than three five weeks of the term, and (ii) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises; or (iii) (ii) the major party fails to comply with Section 3, Clause 3, a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act.

5. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs Department of Federal Elections to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.

6. Any decision of the Department under Section 3 Clause 5 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

7. Should a candidate or candidates be certified victorious in an at-large STV election and concede the seat prior to the date on which they are to swear-in:

• a. If they are a member of a major party, that party's chairman will have until the swearing-in date OR until five days after the candidate's concession (whichever time is later) to appoint a replacement. For the appointment to be valid, the chair must allow a minimum of 24 hours for nominations for the seat, followed by a party-wide vote to choose the replacement that shall last at least 48 hours. Should this date pass without an appointment, then a special election for the seat will be held as soon as possible under the rules set forth in the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act.
• b. If they are not a member of a major party, then a special election for the seat will be held as soon as possible under the rules set forth in the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am unsure about this. On the one hand I like it, particularily from a political approach. But from the game, I worry that fewer elections might not be a good thing.

[Adam Griffin]

I am unsure about this. On the one hand I like it, particularly from a political approach. But from the game, I worry that fewer elections might not be a good thing.

To be fair, the primary component of what is being addressed here has to my knowledge in its current state never resulted in an election. While I'd love to see some of the other issues in the statute cleaned up (if for nothing more than syntax's sake), the main component is the problem that ordering an election < 10 days out from the end of the term presents (namely, that there won't be one because no one has bothered nor will bother to run for such a short term).

And yes, of course in my proposal, I'd like to see parties have additional influence over the selection of their representatives in the Senate in the event of vacancies. As I'm sure you're aware, however, those parts aren't actually up for debate at this time, so I suppose I'll let you Senators run with what Talleyrand has proposed thus far.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I haven't taken a close look at your section seven thing, so that is why I sticking to the number of weeks.

How many weeks were left in X's term?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Did we make a constitutional amendment to allow this?  I'm trying to remember.

[Talleyrand]

I haven't taken a close look at your section seven thing, so that is why I sticking to the number of weeks.

How many weeks were left in X's term?

I think there were just over five weeks left. If you would prefer, perhaps we could do 4?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Ok, so it seems the reason we can have party appointments to fill the seat is because of the constitution doesn't specify if or how a senate vacancy is filled if the vacancy occurs after three weeks before the next regular election:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think saying five weeks before the next term works because there may be cases where that is not the same as 21 days before the election.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Talleyrand
Slot: Forum Affairs

Would this language work? (It's an amendment)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I haven't taken a close look at your section seven thing, so that is why I sticking to the number of weeks.

How many weeks were left in X's term?

I think there were just over five weeks left. If you would prefer, perhaps we could do 4?

Actually, in light of what Adam posted in the other board, five under the current wording would preserve the current three and add the last two weeks that are presently the problem he is describing, no?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Talleyrand
Slot: Forum Affairs

Would this language work? (It's an amendment)

That's pretty confusing honestly.    There's got to be a simpler solution.

[Adam Griffin]

I've just skimmed through the discussions here and on FE, but I'm not sure if/why the original wording is controversial or needs to be reworded; it seems like the most straightforward way to deal with this one issue. I of course threw out a heavily-altered version of the entire Section of the act in the hopes that we might be able to redo the entire bill, but this one as introduced only extends the period to include the lameduck session - something that frankly should be a given.

I messaged the person most likely responsible for the original draft, but haven't heard anything. As Yankee said somewhere, I imagine the wording of this was deliberate based on their "skill level", if you will, so while I can't imagine why this would be written the way it was in 2011, we can assume that it was intentional for whatever reason.

By simply covering 5 out of 16 weeks of a term under this act, we do what the bill would seem to be designed to do - at first glance, anyway - while not altering the earliest point in a term at which the act would apply.

EDIT: Oh, the Constitution. Well...it's a functional issue, so maybe we need to address that as well. It doesn't make sense, either.

[Talleyrand]

I haven't taken a close look at your section seven thing, so that is why I sticking to the number of weeks.

How many weeks were left in X's term?

I think there were just over five weeks left. If you would prefer, perhaps we could do 4?

Actually, in light of what Adam posted in the other board, five under the current wording would preserve the current three and add the last two weeks that are presently the problem he is describing, no?

Is the lame-duck period including election time always two weeks?

[Adam Griffin]

I haven't taken a close look at your section seven thing, so that is why I sticking to the number of weeks.

How many weeks were left in X's term?

I think there were just over five weeks left. If you would prefer, perhaps we could do 4?

Actually, in light of what Adam posted in the other board, five under the current wording would preserve the current three and add the last two weeks that are presently the problem he is describing, no?

Is the lame-duck period including election time always two weeks?

No. Sometimes, it's three weeks because of that silly penultimate thing (case in point, December).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just so you know we can pass a combined Resolution that includes both a Constitutional Amendment and a legislative Act. We did that last June/July to respond to the Pacific thing. You need two thirds vote to pass the whole thing (since that is the minimum for one of the components) and then it is split with the legislative portion sent to the Preisdent and the Amendemnt is sent to the Regions for ratification. All of which is contained in the instructions within the text itself.

[Adam Griffin]

Just so you know we can pass a combined Resolution that includes both a Constitutional Amendment and a legislative Act. We did that last June/July to respond to the Pacific thing. You need two thirds vote to pass the whole thing (since that is the minimum for one of the components) and then it is split with the legislative portion sent to the Preisdent and the Amendemnt is sent to the Regions for ratification. All of which is contained in the instructions within the text itself.

I'll just leave this here then:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President Tyrion]

I'll sponsor Griffin's amendment for him since he's not in the Senate yet.

[Lumine]

I support Griffin's recent amendment. The less ambiguity we have in the whole process, the better, and after seeing two scandals (Napoleon and Alfred) related to this in less than five months worries me a lot.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why the change from 21 to 35 days before the election?

[Cincinnatus]

I see two proposals from Griffin, and one from Talleyrand.  I assume Tyrion is sponsoring Griffins most recent proposal, in which case, I need clarity, as well as sponsor feedback.

[Adam Griffin]

Why the change from 21 to 35 days before the election?

I screwed up and didn't specify "term". Below, it's fixed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President Tyrion]

Well, my assumption is that Griffin's most recent proposal is his most recent thought on the issue, and that's what's worthy of deliberation.

So I pull back the previous amendment and sponsor Griffin's new text.

Hopefully everyone is on board with that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just call it a text revision as opposed to a new amendment.

You can revise texts up until a vote is started or 24 hours have been called.

[Adam Griffin]

Well, my assumption is that Griffin's most recent proposal is his most recent thought on the issue, and that's what's worthy of deliberation.

So I pull back the previous amendment and sponsor Griffin's new text.

Hopefully everyone is on board with that.

Yes - my first proposal did not actually correct the constitutional problem we face; I forgot to revise the 21/35-day part to refer to the end of the term, and since it still was in its original wording, was incorrect.

The second proposal took care of that and should be acceptable, though I'd appreciate some double-checking from the Senators on this matter. Just to clarify: the goal of the text is to ensure that when there are fewer than 35 days before the end of a term for an at-large seat, an appointment can be made by the party of the Senator who vacated the seat.

[President Tyrion]

Well, my assumption is that Griffin's most recent proposal is his most recent thought on the issue, and that's what's worthy of deliberation.

So I pull back the previous amendment and sponsor Griffin's new text.

Hopefully everyone is on board with that.

Yes - my first proposal did not actually correct the constitutional problem we face; I forgot to revise the 21/35-day part to refer to the end of the term, and since it still was in its original wording, was incorrect.

The second proposal took care of that and should be acceptable, though I'd appreciate some double-checking from the Senators on this matter. Just to clarify: the goal of the text is to ensure that when there are fewer than 35 days before the end of a term for an at-large seat, an appointment can be made by the party of the Senator who vacated the seat.

I do believe it achieves that end, based on my reading of it.

My concern is that we're going to have to split up the vote on this thing because one part is an amendment and one part is an amendment to an Act. Similarly, Duke's signature will be needed on the latter but not the former.