Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[Cranberry]

Cranberry and myself voting against the rest of the senate? Surprising .

Must be the pinko European curse

[bore]

Can someone take up this amendment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]


Basically it clarifies a bit of the language, changes the state changing to 6 months, get's rid of the RG clause (I wouldn't really mind if the SOFE was removed instead of the RG but for the
map to break the deadlock we really need to have one person doing it because we don't want the people breaking the deadlock to deadlock themselves. It also specifies that the governors stay on the commission even if they lose re election and makes the commission meeting public.

[Cranberry]

I guess those are sensible changes. I do as well think that just one person should be the final one responsible to draw the map if the governors are deadlocked, simply because as you said, it would be most unfortunate if the people that should resolve the deadlock are deadlock themselves.

I will sponsor the amendment for you, if you want to.

[Talleyrand]

Do we really need a senate confirmation process on these maps?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Or what if we just had a vote among the senators who are chosen by the district system? The first time around would have to be a little different, but it could work once we've got the ball rolling. I do agree that getting the whole senate involved might be unnecessary, but surely these senators (and the people they represent) have a stake in how the maps shape up.

[Lief 🗽]

I don't think Senators should have any say in how the districts that elect them are drawn. That just encourages corruption and self-serving votes.

[Senator Cris]

Or what if we just had a vote among the senators who are chosen by the district system? The first time around would have to be a little different, but it could work once we've got the ball rolling. I do agree that getting the whole senate involved might be unnecessary, but surely these senators (and the people they represent) have a stake in how the maps shape up.

In this case, we should insert a new clause to the text, considered that districts should be approved for the first time first of the August election and first of that election, senators who are chosen by districts don't exist.

[Adam Griffin]

I cannot support the addition of a bunch of bureaucracy involving the Senate (the Senate, despite its constant wishes, doesn't need to provide consent nor have its hands on everything) nor the lack of a clarified timeline for when redistricting will take place.

[Talleyrand]

I'm on board with most of this amendment, but I agree with Lief that we can't have senators voting on their own districts. That adds a totally unnecessary and silly layer of bureaucracy.

Another thing here is that it might be preferential for the R.G. to be the backup map drawer because he or she is the one most involved in the process of collecting voter rolls by state, etc., while the SoFE is primarily an election administration official. Not a big deal for me either way, but just a thought.

[bore]

I'm on board with most of this amendment, but I agree with Lief that we can't have senators voting on their own districts. That adds a totally unnecessary and silly layer of bureaucracy.

Another thing here is that it might be preferential for the R.G. to be the backup map drawer because he or she is the one most involved in the process of collecting voter rolls by state, etc., while the SoFE is primarily an election administration official. Not a big deal for me either way, but just a thought.

Actually that's a good point Talleyrand. Another reason for this is that the SOFE would be on the commission which deadlocks, so giving him the power to draw the deadlock map might be a conflict of interest. Now I'm certain that wouldn't happen with homely, but it's certainly possible that a future SOFE might do that.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]


Well, no one has sponsored Bore's amendment. So here's my amendment: Basically talleyrand and bore's concerns.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Senator Cris]

Cranberry sponsored it.

[windjammer]

Cranberry sponsored it.

He didn't:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Windjammer's amendment has been adopted.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree that Senators should not be involved at all in the process.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't really care too much either way, but I agree that getting the whole senate involved could turn into a distraction, especially when it's not really necessary.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Here is my amendment, basically getting rid of the senate involvement in the redistricting. I basically agree with Polnut and Hagrid.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[Adam Griffin]

I may or may not be here by the time Senator Windjammer's amendment is adopted or rejected, but I offer the following amendment to be considered thereafter, formatted based on the assumption that his amendment will be adopted. Obviously, portions in bolded red font are notes and not to be included in the actual amendment if adopted.

Summary of changes:

1) Cleaned up some language/formatting issues I noticed in the original and subsequent amendments offered; attempted to clarify several existing portions more thoroughly.

2) Establishes a precise time-table using the 8-week method I outlined earlier in debate; the initial commission of Governors/SoFE would have 4 weeks/28 days to produce a set of maps with 4/5ths approval among themselves; if they fail, then the RG would have the same amount of time to product a set of maps, with the process ending no later than 46 days before the commencement of the election. It also adds a concrete time-table as to when the conversion from at-large to district-based Class B elections would begin (Clause 8 ).

3) Stipulated a more accurate use of the Census figures to base maps off of; each 4-week commission would use the most recent Census update prior to their particular redistricting period (instead of it being fixed to a Census update that could be potentially months old if/by the time the RG were tasked with creating the maps).

4) Specified how to handle non-contiguous territories (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Oceania). In this amendment, they would be required to be in a district in which at least one other territory from their Region is included.

5) Updated the Constitutional text we're amending to reflect current text, which was ratified by the regions as part of the PRAF of 2014 and details how to handle special elections for seats vacated 35 days or more (not 21 days or more) before the end of the term. I also added reference to the statute portion of PRAF of 2014 that pertains to the handling of vacant Class B Senate seats less than 35 days before the end of the term (for clarification's sake).

6) Did away with the (what would now be) confusing state/regional moving differences; with the District system, nobody would be able to move from state to state more than once every six months. This language is now simplified to state that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

SINCE THERE IS A LOT OF FORMATTING AND CHANGES IN THE AMENDMENT ABOVE, HERE IS A COPY OF MY AMENDMENT WITHOUT ALL THE STRIKING OUT/BOLD/RED STUFF; WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE IF ADOPTED

[windjammer]

Windjammer's amendment has been adopted.


Senators have 36 hours to object to Griffin's amendment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I believe Senator Griffin's amendment is a good one.

[Talleyrand]

I believe Senator Griffin's amendment is a good one.

As do I. I will definitely be voting in favor of it.

[windjammer]

I believe Senator Griffin's amendment is a good one.

As do I. I will definitely be voting in favor of it.

[Adam Griffin]

Just to clear up a potential language issue, I have replaced two instances of 'DoFE' with 'Secretary of Federal Elections' in the language. This potential could have created an issue as the 'Department of Federal Elections' simultaneously isn't a person and is comprised of multiple people. I don't know if that resets the clock on this or whatever, but it was a needed alteration that doesn't change the dynamic of the amendment.