Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[Cranberry]

I guess you would have to include Canadian territories as well.
Otherwise this looks good to me.

[Talleyrand]

Can we do a final vote?

[bore]

Is any senator willing to offer my amendment?

[Cranberry]

Oh yes, I will, including Canadian territories as well.

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]

[Oakvale]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but given the recent controversy about people contacting new members and getting them to move, would it be perhaps be worth abolishing the "free move" for new members while we're doing this?

[Cranberry]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but given the recent controversy about people contacting new members and getting them to move, would it be perhaps be worth abolishing the "free move" for new members while we're doing this?

I don't know, but I don't really think there are any great problems with the initial move possibility... Just my point of view though, if my dear colleagues think otherwise, I would not have a problem with that.

[Senator Cris]

Cranberry's amendment looks fine.

[Oakvale]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but given the recent controversy about people contacting new members and getting them to move, would it be perhaps be worth abolishing the "free move" for new members while we're doing this?

I don't know, but I don't really think there are any great problems with the initial move possibility... Just my point of view though, if my dear colleagues think otherwise, I would not have a problem with that.

It's probably not worth delaying this amendment any further for, but it might be an idea to consider in the future.

[Cranberry]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but given the recent controversy about people contacting new members and getting them to move, would it be perhaps be worth abolishing the "free move" for new members while we're doing this?

I don't know, but I don't really think there are any great problems with the initial move possibility... Just my point of view though, if my dear colleagues think otherwise, I would not have a problem with that.

It's probably not worth delaying this amendment any further for, but it might be an idea to consider in the future.

Yes, I'm too of the opinion of getting this thing finally going

[windjammer]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but given the recent controversy about people contacting new members and getting them to move, would it be perhaps be worth abolishing the "free move" for new members while we're doing this?

I don't know, but I don't really think there are any great problems with the initial move possibility... Just my point of view though, if my dear colleagues think otherwise, I would not have a problem with that.

It's probably not worth delaying this amendment any further for, but it might be an idea to consider in the future.

You're right. It needs to be abolished.

[bore]

I'm agnostic about the change oakvale suggests, but experience shows the more things an amendment deals with the less likely it is to pass, so seeing as this is basically a separate issue it should wait for another amendment.

[windjammer]

And senators have 36 hours to object.

[Talleyrand]

The other thing to consider is that for the sake of updating the constitution and not cluttering it with too many amendments, it might be a good idea to include the change oakvale suggests in this amendment anyway. We are already heavily altering the registration rules.

BTW, where exactly in the constitution is "one free move"? I know it's a silly question, but I've never been able to find it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't necessarily see oakvale's suggestion as a poison pill, but I also don't really see how it's related to the current set of changes. It's a different issue entirely that I haven't given much thought to, and I don't really want to have to think about it in this particular debate. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, but I'm thinking that keeping this amendment as simple as possible would be advantageous to those of us who want to see the amendment pass.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That was a lot of words to say basically nothing, but yeah.

[bore]

So, final vote time?

[Oakvale]

The other thing to consider is that for the sake of updating the constitution and not cluttering it with too many amendments, it might be a good idea to include the change oakvale suggests in this amendment anyway. We are already heavily altering the registration rules.

BTW, where exactly in the constitution is "one free move"? I know it's a silly question, but I've never been able to find it.

My understanding is that actually comes from the ambiguity here -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i.e. the initial registration is not changing registration from one region to another and as such does not count against this time limit.

[Poirot]

The At-Large election has some advantages. It is one big electoral event that is for all the nation, the only one aside from the presidential election. It usually gets high participation. Since it is one national election it is easier to organize a debate and have the focus on that. Since it is addressed to all voters it is worth doing a public campaign for a candidate. For candidates it is a chance to come in contact with people in all the nation. At-Large offers a different way for someone to enter the Senate while districts are more identical regional Senate election. Someone who is not popular or not well-known or who is less mainstream but backed by a big party can be elected in At-Large.

The order of preference on the ballott matters because there could be a surplus to be distributed and that could influence the result. Not sure with districts we will get many candidates in each race and the order of preference might not be a factor if it's like regional elections when you only have two candidates. In At-Large it is easier to campaign for yourself while in a two person election you are almost forced to run against your opponent if the race is competitive.

I hope we keep the At-Large. There is risks with the districts, it all depends what those drawing them will do. If the districts are not competitive, not many candidates will run and some districts will be boring. It could lead to unpopular incumbents being put in unfavorable districts. It could lead to more alliances between parties and that could kill competition. If small party members are not put together there is little chance for a small political party to win a district and be represented in the Senate without the desire of a big one. Since a district will regroup people from different areas, the camapigning could be more private to reach the voters instead of doing it in public.   

[homelycooking]

The At-Large election has some advantages. It is one big electoral event that is for all the nation, the only one aside from the presidential election. It usually gets high participation. Since it is one national election it is easier to organize a debate and have the focus on that. Since it is addressed to all voters it is worth doing a public campaign for a candidate. For candidates it is a chance to come in contact with people in all the nation. At-Large offers a different way for someone to enter the Senate while districts are more identical regional Senate election. Someone who is not popular or not well-known or who is less mainstream but backed by a big party can be elected in At-Large.

The at-large elections are, on the other hand, increasingly rarely competitive. The two most recent elections have featured six candidates running for five seats, with little doubt as to whom the five elected would be. This is often due to the fact that no major party has ever won more than two seats at a general at-large election, or has ever been foolish enough to consciously risk splitting their candidates' vote three ways.

To be fair, I don't think many of the 130 voters actively followed the campaign or paid attention to the debates. Partisanship is far and away the best predictor, time and time again, of how an Atlasian will vote. The supporters you have won with your vigorous campaigning just haven't been enough to match the parties' vigorous GOTV efforts of their registered members, nor is your ideological niche large enough to siphon off enough votes from the center-right or center-left.

[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]
Cranberry's amendment has been adopted.

[bore]

In addition to what homely says, it's worth pointing out that although there is this idea (which does appear sensible in theory) that at large elections allow more extreme atlasians to get in, in fact I don't think this is supported by the facts.

TNF has views incredibly far to the left of the average atlasian, yet he has been re elected repeatedly, Deus was one or two votes away from defeating me in the centre left northeast, the mideast before windjammer saw a long line of social conservatives who's views are noticeably to the right of atlasia. In the last few years we have had, as regional senators, atlasia's most socially conservative, most libertarian and most left wing members.

[Adam Griffin]

Just pooping in here to remind Senators that based on the schedule outlined in the current text, this process would need to be completed - along with ratification - by May 3rd in order to go into effect for the August elections. This means that the bill would need to clear the Senate no later than the 26th to allow for seven-day voting periods in the regions.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Just pooping in here to remind Senators that based on the schedule outlined in the current text, this process would need to be completed - along with ratification - by May 3rd in order to go into effect for the August elections. This means that the bill would need to clear the Senate no later than the 26th to allow for seven-day voting periods in the regions.

Ah, I had been wondering about this part.

[Talleyrand]

I call for a final vote.

[windjammer]

Well,
So I suspend the following rules:
-the cloture of debate vote
-the necessity of letting 24 hours for vote change


So, a final vote is now open. Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.