SENATE BILL: Efficient Referenda Amendment (Failed)

[TNF]

Absurd. This was the best compromise we had for fixing consistent inactivity issues that plague the opening of amendment booths. Way to screw the pooch again, guys.

but...but...

muh regions
muh constitution

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What makes you guys think that concentrating onto one person, a task that five other people presently do, is a good thing? What if something happens to them? Now all five regions are screwed whereras one might have had a temporary delay under the present system.

The difference is attention and people will raise hell if something goes wrong. That is the corrective mechanism and if it were brought to full force on the Regional Executives as well, we would have more to gain then just ensuring a booth gets opened on time, but numerous other improvements as well. Like I said at the beginning of the debate, constantly removing responsbilities, will only lead to one thing and that is more inactivity, not less.

[President Tyrion]

What makes you guys think that concentrating onto one person, a task that five other people presently do, is a good thing? What if something happens to them? Now all five regions are screwed whereras one might have had a temporary delay under the present system.

The difference is attention and people will raise hell if something goes wrong. That is the corrective mechanism and if it were brought to full force on the Regional Executives as well, we would have more to gain then just ensuring a booth gets opened on time, but numerous other improvements as well. Like I said at the beginning of the debate, constantly removing responsbilities, will only lead to one thing and that is more inactivity, not less.

By that same logic, you'd have five times as many people raising hell if homely (or someone else) were to open the booth late.

[Lumine]

People don't raise hell when something goes wrong. In fact, they often don't even notice, as I've documented several times in the past. The only people who publicize these failures are people like me, who have been advocating for an amendment like this for years.

I must say that President Nix is absolutely right on this one. While people noticed when I opened the booths late (specially Tmth), I never really got any kind of punishment for such a behavior, and neither have all the regional executives throughout the years who make these mistakes. I for one fully trust the DoFE to take care of the entire process, and having or not having the prerogative to open and close the booths is certainly irrelevant to the performance of the regional executives, not a crucial right that they should retain until the end of time.

[Cincinnatus]

This was worth a try.  At least now we know where the Senators stand on this issue come election time, and for when we try again.

And as I previously stated, Yankee, why is delegating authority to five different actors a good thing?  It only works to increase the chances of someone screwing up.  You and I both know historically, some executives pay little attention to the Senate.  If they weren't personally PM'd by you or I, some of them don't even know an amendment was passed.  An example being when I waited a few days until sending the PM out for the Proportional Representation Act. 

Many of these Governors are, in fact, very active, with an exception, but they still missed an amendment.  Three of our current Governors even agree that this should have passed.  If we're supposed to use this delegated authority as a measurement of activity, or to encourage activity, when are we going to speak up when ou executives fail to adhere to the responsibility?  When are you going to hold them accountable for a task that you refuse to divert to a more effective means?  We can't sit on our hands and do nothing either way..

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And as I previously stated, Yankee, why is delegating authority to five different actors a good thing?  It only works to increase the chances of someone screwing up.  You and I both know historically, some executives pay little attention to the Senate.  If they weren't personally PM'd by you or I, some of them don't even know an amendment was passed.  An example being when I waited a few days until sending the PM out for the Proportional Representation Act. 

I have had the position of PPT for a long time? Do you expect that you can count on the PPT to get the job done and if so, how much of that is a reflection on the fact that I have had it for so long. Yet, have I concentrated more responsibility into that post or spread it around in the time that I have held it? If I took the same approach you take with this, the VP would either be a abolished or an 11th Senator.

It is my contention that we have gotten complacent in the last two years in expecting perfection out of the DoFE, whilst expecting disappointment out of the Governors. For one thing there are more Governors then there are SoFE's so you are going to of course have more incidents.

I don't know maybe it is just my personal preference, but I prefer to spread sh**t around rather then concentrate it all in one place. Less sh**t for some one screw up, and less damage if they do.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Many of these Governors are, in fact, very active, with an exception, but they still missed an amendment.  Three of our current Governors even agree that this should have passed.  If we're supposed to use this delegated authority as a measurement of activity, or to encourage activity, when are we going to speak up when ou executives fail to adhere to the responsibility?  When are you going to hold them accountable for a task that you refuse to divert to a more effective means?  We can't sit on our hands and do nothing either way..

What do you mean, "Where are you goint to hold them accountable"? Scott got the job done. If he had disappeared and it never got done then I would have called for his resignation. I try to keep in regular contact with the Emperor, though for obvious reasons I stopped in March and early April. But that is exactly my point, if as a culture we demanded that kind of accountability, we wouldn't have the kinds ofp roblems you describe. How is just shifting it onto someone else, someone who has a tough job as it is and we pray night and day doesn't just up and leave because of how hard it is to find a good replacement, a sound approach?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

People don't raise hell when something goes wrong. In fact, they often don't even notice, as I've documented several times in the past. The only people who publicize these failures are people like me, who have been advocating for an amendment like this for years.

I must say that President Nix is absolutely right on this one. While people noticed when I opened the booths late (specially Tmth), I never really got any kind of punishment for such a behavior, and neither have all the regional executives throughout the years who make these mistakes. I for one fully trust the DoFE to take care of the entire process, and having or not having the prerogative to open and close the booths is certainly irrelevant to the performance of the regional executives, not a crucial right that they should retain until the end of time.

How late were you, a couple of days? And did it always get done? Of course no one would "hold you accountable" for that, you got the damn job done. The SoFE can be late, The SoFE can disappear jsut as easy as a Governor can.

[DemPGH]

As a Governor, I really think this should be about as close to automatic as anything should get here. The choice is an extremely competent SoFE taking care of it in one thread vs. five different people taking care of in five different places at five different times, some of whom may forget or just neglect to do it. Passing this cuts down on clutter on the Voting board, reduces margin of error, consolidates, and streamlines. It really should just pass.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As a Governor, I really think this should be about as close to automatic as anything should get here. The choice is an extremely competent SoFE taking care of it in one thread vs. five different people taking care of in five different places at five different times, some of whom may forget or just neglect to do it. Passing this cuts down on clutter on the Voting board, reduces margin of error, consolidates, and streamlines. It really should just pass.

For how long?

[windjammer]

Well,
I'm sad to see this amendment has been rejected.

I say that as being a Governor myself, but I don't consider that's my business to do that. This is a federal issue, so homelycooking (or anyone else who has his current position) should administer that.

Some regions in the past have activity problems, the Midwest itself, what if there is no governor, no acting governor? It could troll definitely the game!
Whereas a Sofe, if he's inactive, he can be replaced/impeached by the senate easily, and the senate is by far the chamber that has the lower risk of being inactive.

[DemPGH]

As a Governor, I really think this should be about as close to automatic as anything should get here. The choice is an extremely competent SoFE taking care of it in one thread vs. five different people taking care of in five different places at five different times, some of whom may forget or just neglect to do it. Passing this cuts down on clutter on the Voting board, reduces margin of error, consolidates, and streamlines. It really should just pass.

For how long?

Even if you want to use that line of argument, how does it not apply to five governors? Indeed, the heart of the matter is that it is the SoFE's job to do this sort of thing; he has to do it. As a governor your job is to advise, sign, improve, or reject statutes. This sort of thing is minor to a governor, actually, so that govs. might not pay attention or forget does not surprise me.

My main argument is that this would organize and streamline something that is relatively chaotic right now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As a Governor, I really think this should be about as close to automatic as anything should get here. The choice is an extremely competent SoFE taking care of it in one thread vs. five different people taking care of in five different places at five different times, some of whom may forget or just neglect to do it. Passing this cuts down on clutter on the Voting board, reduces margin of error, consolidates, and streamlines. It really should just pass.

For how long?

Even if you want to use that line of argument, how does it not apply to five governors? Indeed, the heart of the matter is that it is the SoFE's job to do this sort of thing; he has to do it. As a governor your job is to advise, sign, improve, or reject statutes. This sort of thing is minor to a governor, actually, so that govs. might not pay attention or forget does not surprise me.

My main argument is that this would organize and streamline something that is relatively chaotic right now.

Governors have to administer there own electiosn for themselves and their legislatures and the ratification votes for their own constitution's amendments, no? If we are so worried about them being forgotten, why don't we just allow the Regions tie the amendments to the next Regional election. They are Regional Ratification Votes afterall. In fact the regions are presently allowed to do that under the 17th amendment I think.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As a Governor, I really think this should be about as close to automatic as anything should get here. The choice is an extremely competent SoFE taking care of it in one thread vs. five different people taking care of in five different places at five different times, some of whom may forget or just neglect to do it. Passing this cuts down on clutter on the Voting board, reduces margin of error, consolidates, and streamlines. It really should just pass.

For how long?

Even if you want to use that line of argument, how does it not apply to five governors?

My point was not that it did not apply to the five governors but that it also (keyword also) applies to the SoFE. The thing is trading one set of problems for another one. And being the Senate as I have I have heard administration after administration praying to god the SoFE doesn't quit and/or saying "You I don't know what the hell we'd ever do if homely left". I never said the Governors was perfect, you guys on the other hand have at the very least implied that the SoFE was though and/or failed to acknowledge the risks there prior to me raising them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well,
I'm sad to see this amendment has been rejected.

I say that as being a Governor myself, but I don't consider that's my business to do that. This is a federal issue, so homelycooking (or anyone else who has his current position) should administer that.

Regional Ratification is a Federal issue? A federal system is built to balance out the subunits interests with that of the whole nation's interests. The ratification of amendments to the constitution, even though it is the Federal Constitution, are inherently the business of the Regions because that document defines the relationship between the two levels of Gov't.

Some regions in the past have activity problems, the Midwest itself, what if there is no governor, no acting governor? It could troll definitely the game!
Whereas a Sofe, if he's inactive, he can be replaced/impeached by the senate easily, and the senate is by far the chamber that has the lower risk of being inactive.

Yes I know, but why should we just seek to relieve them of responsbility as a solution. I know this argument grates on people but that was precisely the aim of what was done in the Pacific last year. Do we just ignore the Midwest or Pacific or whatever. Well the amendment system will be fine regardless, you people just sit there and wallow in your misery over there. There is this whole mentality of isolation of just isolating it off, as if Regions were some kind of disease. Thats your Governor and your legislature. It should be our aim to treat the Regions as responsbile governoring bodies and if one more is not then that should be changed as soon as possible.

[President Tyrion]

Thats your Governor and your legislature. It should be our aim to treat the Regions as responsbile governoring bodies and if one more is not then that should be changed as soon as possible.

Here is the issue, and this is going to be my final word on the issue until this arises again:

The Secretary of Federal Elections is a position whose job it is to manage elections. If he fails in that capacity, he is forced to resign, or he is impeached.

The Governor is elected to lead the region. If he fails to open the booth, he may face no consequences. Indeed, if a Governor is perfect in almost every respect, but fails to open amendment booths, I still might vote for him. Why? Because his job is to govern, of which only a small part is running federal amendment elections. As a regional voter, my job isn't to find the Governor who will best run federal amendment booths. My job is to find the best Governor for my region, and he may be the worst Governor at federal amendment booths, but I don't care, as long as he can save the region.

As such, and this is supremely important, there will be variance in the ability of the governors to perform this task. This is simple statistics and sociology; if you are selecting someone on some basis, then their performance in another basis will behave like the population as a whole, not like an expert in his field. And we want experts in the election-running field running elections, because we can inherently create a sample of people who have been vetted for their abilities to run elections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thats your Governor and your legislature. It should be our aim to treat the Regions as responsbile governoring bodies and if one more is not then that should be changed as soon as possible.

Here is the issue, and this is going to be my final word on the issue until this arises again:

The Secretary of Federal Elections is a position whose job it is to manage elections. If he fails in that capacity, he is forced to resign, or he is impeached.

The Governor is elected to lead the region. If he fails to open the booth, he may face no consequences. Indeed, if a Governor is perfect in almost every respect, but fails to open amendment booths, I still might vote for him. Why? Because his job is to govern, of which only a small part is running federal amendment elections. As a regional voter, my job isn't to find the Governor who will best run federal amendment booths. My job is to find the best Governor for my region, and he may be the worst Governor at federal amendment booths, but I don't care, as long as he can save the region.

As such, and this is supremely important, there will be variance in the ability of the governors to perform this task. This is simple statistics and sociology; if you are selecting someone on some basis, then their performance in another basis will behave like the population as a whole, not like an expert in his field. And we want experts in the election-running field running elections, because we can inherently create a sample of people who have been vetted for their abilities to run elections.

Is not rather unlikely that a person who is active in nearly ever yother matter, would be also likewise dreadfull at opening booths. For one, the Regional Senators are a defense mechanism and should serve to contact them if necessary on the matter. If an active Governor maybe a day or two late but contacted and gets it done, like I told Lumine, is indeed whilst unfortunate, not a grounds to vote them out.

However, in a similar situation where an otherwise active Governor is contacted after a day's delay, but refused to comply. Then I would hope that would thus be made an issue in the election and people would vote accordingly based on that refusal.

[homelycooking]

I'm not interested in continuing to argue over this proposal if I can't even convince the Senate of its merits any more. I give up. Sorry to have insulted you, wasted your time, etc., Senators.

[Adam Griffin]

It's absurd and overly-nuanced arguments like these that strengthen my desire for the regions to go away.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's absurd and overly-nuanced arguments like these that strengthen my desire for the regions to go away.

Would you have preferred another silent Nay vote instead? I would point out that were that desire on the part of several not present, Adam, this would have stood a better chance at passing.

I'm not interested in continuing to argue over this proposal if I can't even convince the Senate of its merits any more. I give up. Sorry to have insulted you, wasted your time, etc., Senators.

I respect your opinion homely, but I still have to go with my instincts on things like this. It should not have to be a matter of personal affront simply because people disagree.

[Adam Griffin]

It's absurd and overly-nuanced arguments like these that strengthen my desire for the regions to go away.

Would you have preferred another silent Nay vote instead? I would point out that were that desire on the part of several not present, Adam, this would have stood a better chance at passing.

Actually, yes, I would. At present, it's just turd-dressing and you've admitted that that's all it is based on your second sentence; "let's vote against something useful because some people don't cum over the idea of regions, but hey, at least we put on a show in the interim".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's absurd and overly-nuanced arguments like these that strengthen my desire for the regions to go away.

Would you have preferred another silent Nay vote instead? I would point out that were that desire on the part of several not present, Adam, this would have stood a better chance at passing.

Actually, yes, I would. At present, it's just turd-dressing and you've admitted that that's all it is based on your second sentence; "let's vote against something useful because some people don't cum over the idea of regions, but hey, at least we put on a show in the interim".

I should have expected such twisting of my words from you. For the record I was referring to passing it in the regions with the second sentence, otherwise I would have included some reference to my own support based on that circumstance. Though I am concerned to some extent that removing more and more from their responsbility will undermine and bring about their abolition, my primary concern was, as I stated before, is the concern about consolidating too much onto one person's shoulders.

This bill is hardly in anything's way now so I frankly don't see the problem in hashing out the reasonings.