Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

This sounds like an excellent idea that will make Senatorial elections more interesting.

Plus the partnerships are entirely voluntary, so regions themselves can decide whether to participate.

Endorsed by this Atlasian citizen.

[Bacon King]

The only problem is that there needs to be a method for a region to leave the partnership if it changes its mind.

[tmthforu94]

The only problem is that there needs to be a method for a region to leave the partnership if it changes its mind.

Yes, I read that in the previous thread's discussion after posting this. I'm extremely open to any amendment adding that.

[Purple State]

One of ya'll needs to read this and write a constitutional amendment fixing it.

Whoever says that someone with under 100 posts can't contribute, think again.

[President Mitt]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?

Recently, Regional Senate elections have gotten rather boring, with only one "close" result in February, which was the Northeast. This could possibly bring back some spice to Regional Senate seats, without taking them away. I guess you could call this an alternative to abolishing regional seats, a much better alternative that will actually give even more power to the regions, while making the elections even more exciting.

[President Mitt]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?

Recently, Regional Senate elections have gotten rather boring, with only one "close" result in February, which was the Northeast. This could possibly bring back some spice to Regional Senate seats, without taking them away.

Interesting, but I don't have a lot of hope that many people in the regions would be incredibly excited about entering a 'partnership,' It would be nice to 'diversify' the regions however, considering the somewhat lagging elections. I do hope this passes however, simply to switch around things in the game.

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?

Recently, Regional Senate elections have gotten rather boring, with only one "close" result in February, which was the Northeast. This could possibly bring back some spice to Regional Senate seats, without taking them away.

Interesting, but I don't have a lot of hope that many people in the regions would be incredibly excited about entering a 'partnership,' It would be nice to 'diversify' the regions however, considering the somewhat lagging elections. I do hope this passes however, simply to switch around things in the game.

What did you have in mind when saying "'diversify' the regions"? Because honestly, I'm desperate right now, and I know others are, for a boost in Atlasia, and anyone's imput would be greatly appreciated.

[Bacon King]

Repeal the HAEV Act

The High Authority for Ethics in Voting Act is hereby repealed.







Ahem.  What is the holdup in this being opened on the Senate floor?  Bacon King, I sent you a PM yesterday about this.

There was no space on the floor for the bill then. There isn't really now even, but I'm allowing it in the PPT slot for prudency's sake since slot three will be empty tomorrow anyway and your bill's the next in line. I like to keep the PPT slot open for big emergencies since the "Forum Affairs/Emergency" slot is mostly taken up by the huge amount of Forum Affairs legislation we have.

[Peter]

My recent role in the HAEV and a review of the Statute thread with Barnes has revealed that the following acts relating to the conduct of elections are in force:

Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (14-2)

Federal Activity Requirements Revision Act (16-4)

Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (Amendment) Act (21-1)

Proportional Representation Act (21-2)

The Eastern Standard Time Act (21-3)

Proportional Representation (By-Elections) Act (25-4)

Proportional Representation (Class A seats) Act (never enterred force) (27-3)

Restoration of CESRA Act (27-6)

Secret Ballot Bill  (never enterred force) (28-12)

Third Amendment to the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (31-23)

The Absentee Voting Act (32-8)

Fourth Amendment to the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (34-8)

Amendment to the Absentee Voting Act (35-10)

Fifth Amendment to the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act (36-7)

Its far too many for any person to be able to understand without devoting several hours. I would like to suggest a consolidation exercise. I'm quite happy to participate in this process as I've done it before, but I need some direction from those with an actual mandate.

[Barnes]

^ I'll be perfectly willing to come to the table representing the Justice Department.

[Badger]

If the Senate consents, I'll come to to the table representing that chamber.

We should probably have a second representative. Although these are reletively non-partisan technocratic issues, at least one Senate rep should be a veteran representive of the conservative wing. Interested Yank? Duke?

[Хahar 🤔]

Given the number of Cabinet positions being created and the fact that they very greatly in the amount of work required to discharge the duties of the office, perhaps a constitutional amendment could be passed allowing a person to hold multiple Cabinet positions simultaneously. Would someone like to introduce this?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the Senate consents, I'll come to to the table representing that chamber.

We should probably have a second representative. Although these are reletively non-partisan technocratic issues, at least one Senate rep should be a veteran representive of the conservative wing. Interested Yank? Duke?

I might be interested, but I will warn that between school at day, and my brother taking an "online" course, getting on everyday is difficult.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, here we go again.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Isn't capital punishment already outlawed on the federal level, making this amendment largely pointless?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have a proposition for the Senate... an annual day of National Celebration on the anniversary of Phil ceasing to be President. It could be called 'Keystone Shill' day.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have a proposition for the Senate... an annual day of National Celebration on the anniversary of Phil ceasing to be President. It could be called 'Keystone Shill' day.

If the Senate doesn't take up this task I shall make it a campaign pledge.

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
 
Introduced on behalf of the Renaissance Caucus and Peter.

BK, do you think we can ram this through by the Friday?

Sorry for not responding earlier, but no; giving it the minimum debate time would have given it less than a day's leeway before the new Senate. If it was even friendlily amended it would be pushed into the new session. Best to wait, I think. I'll gladly reintroduce it myself, even

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 
 
Introduced on behalf of the Renaissance Caucus and Peter.

BK, do you think we can ram this through by the Friday?

Sorry for not responding earlier, but no; giving it the minimum debate time would have given it less than a day's leeway before the new Senate. If it was even friendlily amended it would be pushed into the new session. Best to wait, I think. I'll gladly reintroduce it myself, even

Yea, I will withraw it untill then.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Due to Bgwah's amendment to the CCJA last month, isn't Clause one of Section one about impersonation reduntant with Clause 7 of section one?

[Fritz]

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

If some Senator could take up this cause for me, I would appreciate it. 

The 16th amendment dictates that registered voters be removed after failing to vote for 8 months (4 elections).  This amends the original rule of removal after not voting for 4 months (2 elections).  I have no idea why this amendment was added.  As the RG, it is my feeling that this lengthy requirement unnecessarily clutters the voting rolls with registrants who have clearly left, and are not coming back.  Besides, if someone is removed by a shorter time frame who did not wish to be, that person can easily fix the problem by simply registering again.

Thank you,
Fritz

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

If some Senator could take up this cause for me, I would appreciate it. 

The 16th amendment dictates that registered voters be removed after failing to vote for 8 months (4 elections).  This amends the original rule of removal after not voting for 4 months (2 elections).  I have no idea why this amendment was added.  As the RG, it is my feeling that this lengthy requirement unnecessarily clutters the voting rolls with registrants who have clearly left, and are not coming back.  Besides, if someone is removed by a shorter time frame who did not wish to be, that person can easily fix the problem by simply registering again.

Thank you,
Fritz

I'll take it up for you.

[Fritz]

Thanks Inks!!!

I did some digging into the history behind this, here is the original debate.  Peter, Ernest, and Jas all participated in it.  Perhaps they could speak up in the current amendment's debate as well.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     For what it's worth, the argument of wanting to avoid the list continually shrinking seems quite weak. As far as I can see, there's no meaningful difference between having someone on the list who has left the forum & not having that person on there.