Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Poirot]

The the Postac Service Act states

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm surprised everyone agrees with that and nobody is trying to defend the workers. It is scrapping negotiated contracts. It doesn't even wait for the next negotiation to modify the agreements.

[Poirot]

I have a question on the ratification decentralization amendment. At first I read it as a regional legislature had to choose one method.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I took it as choosing one option and sticking to it for every amendment. It could also be the legislature chooses one option every time an amendment comes up depending on the topic. (the first time they choose legilsature vote, second time public vote, third time public vote, fourth legislature vote). That could slow the processus of ratification if the legislature makes a choice every time there is an amendment or if the legislature is inactive.

Is it correct the regional legislatures can choose the method of ratification case by case or can make a formal choice of method if they wish.

I was also wondering if the regions have total control on determining the requirements for passage, like simple majority or a super majority, or even rules like a majority of voters registered by the three main parties in the region. 

[Poirot]

Thank you for making the effort of replying even if you were not someone at the federal level  proposing or voting on the matter.

[Poirot]

I think Superique is refering to the 0.1% stock transaction tax that was in the President's campaign platform.

[Poirot]

Executive Order #29-003 declared state of anarchy for Pacific region and named an administrator of voting booth.

I ask the Senate, maybe by the Internal Affairs or GOR committee, to investigate and question the President on this action. He should be held accountable.

The Pacific was not an hyperactive region. It is the west coast and has a more laid back pace. The recall of the Governor petition got enough signatures and all indication was it was going to happen. According to the information published, the recall had until May 26 to be done. There was still time. It was not running behind schedule. Someone had indicated he would administer the recall.

Declaring a state of anarchy in the Pacific at this point was not appropriate and an overreaction. The President took the power away from elected officials who were complying with the region's law.

[Poirot]

I have contacted the Justice committee chair if it's the appropriate committee.

Using the state of anarchy power was wrong because it didn't meet the requirements. There was no anarchy state. The voting booth probably would have been opened. Interfering in the region's affair was not yet required. It was like a preemptive strike.

Maybe a president approving the trolling of another party's thread has no legal consequence and it's politics rivalry but declaring anarchy state when it is not really needed is abuse of power.     

[Poirot]

It won't probably matter by next week, they could have recalled everyone for all I know. And from the reactions I've read, senators would back the President's actions or think he is within is right.

I still think an exceptional power was used and the description of state of chaos used to justified the action was exaggerated. Recall could happen without declaring anarchy power. If there was worry about the legality of the person opening the voting booth, the elected official who was going to do it could have been officially named in charge of voting booth instead of a newcomer.

It is worrying to know one person has the power to decide when a region is dysfunctional.

[Poirot]

On voting rights included in the common market between Atlasia and Canada, the agreement states Atlasians living in a canadian province are considered from a region for limited jurisdictional and regional/federal electoral purposes.

An Atlasian residing in Canada will have the right to vote if I undestand this, but if the citizen can also be a candidate for office in the region, wouldn't be a negative for the candidate since Canada is still another country. Why would I vote for someone to represent me if the candidate is living in a foreign country even if we are attached for electoral purposes. 

[Poirot]

So, hum, on the days listed as holidays on the federal holidays act, will the senate and regional legislatures be active or on holidays (not working) ?

[Poirot]

I have a comment on the red text section of an amendment found in the Regional Legislative Act Act of 2013.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the only way a region can have a new constitution (because is has none or has one but want a new one) requiring a majority of citizens in the region is high. If it is based on census numbers, the Pacific for example has 32 citizens. Would this mean 17 citizens have to petition for a new constitution. Seems nearly impossible to me.

And to approve the new constitution, the three-fifths of that region's citizens in a public poll is needed. Is it three-fifths of citizens on the census number or of those who will take the time to vote on the issue. 

[Poirot]

Thank you for the explanations.

[Poirot]

The Senate is presently studying a change in the judiciary system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Citizens could be selected to be on the People's Court. Will there be an opt out option for citizens who don't want to be selected ? I am not interested in making rulings like a judge.

[Poirot]

Is there a place I could read about the powers of the VP in the Senate, what he can do in the senate procedures. When NCYankee is absent the senate work almost stops. I thought maybe the VP has some power to move things. 

[Poirot]

I semi-support the End lame duck terms. I find the lame duck period very long and ideally I would get rid of it. Because certification, possible court case, preparation for newly elected people, maybe read about senate rules and write legislation, I would choose a lame duck session as short as possible, maybe 5 or 7 days after the election.

I am against the Proportional representation fix amendment. I know it's a fix but I am against the situation of a senator serving for more than a month being nominated by a political party. I don't like party nomination instead of election and it could be for a long time, a month is a quarter or a normal term. 

[Poirot]

I'm trying to understand when the End lame duck terms amendment would apply for the first time. It says: take effect with the terms of those elected in the August 2014 general election

Does it mean the lame duck period in August will be shorter or is it at the end of the term of those elected in August which would make the shorter term lame duck period first applied in December only. December would be in a long time to apply the new period.

Also the bill's name could be changed since the lame duck will still exist. Pehaps some words like Modify, Shorten, or Reduce is more appropriate.

[Poirot]

Sorry for the name. I was only noticing the thread title.
Thanks for explaining to me when it would start.

[Poirot]

I have worries about the method of election by party list in the bicameralism bill for candidates who are not from major parties.

First, I would like to know if a voter could only make a choice (or choices) in one list. There is no way a voter could select candidates that are not in the same list.

It has been suggested in the bill discussion thread:
Each major party would be allowed to determine how it will handle the selection/order of candidates
Everyone else would caucus together and use standard PR-STV to determine selection/order


Everyone else is lumped together in the same list? So two independent candidates, one Far Left and one Earth Liberation could be on the same list. Even if voters are able to rank candidates in a single list, can voters know in choosing the Everyone else list that their vote won't help elect someone they don't like.

I'm trying to imagine if that type of ballot will be good for candidates not in major parties. 

[Poirot]

What would make sense is to have it so that independent and minor party candidates can choose whether to join a list with others, or whether to run by themselves. 

Whether a voter could select more than one list I'm not clear on either.

I wouldn't like forcing independent and small parties to be on the same miscellaneous list. Having their own list would be better but then a possible difficulty for them if voters can select only one list is being seen as having a good chance to have enough votes to win. If voters don't believe these candidates can garner enough votes and voting is not transferable to another list, then they could decide to avoid risking wasting a vote and go to the biggest party they like.

I've been trying to imagine what the voting dynamic would be with party list for independent / small parties. The bicameral proposal seems to be tied to shrinking the number of regions so I am opposed to it.   

[Poirot]

For the energy sector debate, perhaps the Senate could look into a different model. There could be partial nationalization. I googled Statoil in Norway and it says it is owned 67% by government. Maybe we could have government control in a private sector setting (still need to make profit).

[Poirot]

Good question. Yesterday I noticed there was no swearing in for senate yet. The election was almost two weeks ago. I figured maybe it's two full weeks after the election has ended. I haven't gone to check what the rules say to know the exact dates, I just go by memory of a delay of about two weeks.

[Poirot]

September 5th looks like a first Friday after the election!

This would be the exact text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Poirot]

It is shocking to see the Senate could suspend the rules to retroactively consider an amendment successfully passing when at the time it was closed there were not enough votes to pass it.

I am doing this on the advice of the supreme court to avoid a legal debate over whether a 2/3rds majority of voting senators or a 2/3rds majority of all sitting senators  is needed to pass an amendment.

I hope the Supreme Court didn't explicitly told you to suspend the rules and count one more vote after the fact. 

[Poirot]

Nobody cares poirot

It's sad that s small group of people can run things as they please.

[Poirot]

I don't know why they don't want to come out and explain 6 is not 7. Since they don't want to settle the issue and throw back the ball to the Senate, maybe they expect the amendment be declared void because there was a problem in the voting process.

[Poirot]

The President using the state of emergency reason to propose the electoral reform amendment is a bit of a stretch in my opinion in the definition of state of emergency. I view a legislative emergency as a quick need to repair an important loophole in a law, or pass a law to solve something that is stopping the game from moving. Election reform is not a "state of emergency". It looks more like state of emergency means whatever the President wants.