Constitutional Convention - Commentary thread.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I agree, though at the same time we need to also not change for the sake of change. If bicameralism is to succeed, it must do so on its own merits. The people voting for it should do so because they are confident that it will succeed rather than because it is different.

     I don't mean to suggest that they are doing that, but such is the danger of fearing that we won't change enough.

[ilikeverin]

The most frustrating thing is, we've had a plan in place to revitalize the game in place for 2 years and we're still arguing over making some very basic changes.

The game has degraded to a point where it's hard to get many people to play it. You'd think that would be a wake up call to most people but to my amazement some still don't get it, and I'm too old and too tired to keep pounding my head against a wall.

Youngin'.

[Poirot]

The delegates have opted for bicameralism even if many expressed concerns about it. A survey earlier this year showed citizens were split on this issue.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=212934.0

But delegates chose to still pursue this by a low vote. I didn't see an official vote count but I would say 9 or 10 delegates voted bicameralism and it was enough to add another legislative body in Nyman.

I don.t know if it's bad news for regional activity and interest. With more legislators in Nyman than we have now, if there are not enough candidates at all level it will be again the regional assemblies that will be harder to fill. I don't know if citizens will follow Nyman politics more because of the presence of two houses and more legislators at the expense of regional assemblies.

I'm not sure what powers the Senate will have. If it can block legislation the House spent weeks working and debating, this could bring conflicts.

Considering there are usually a couple office holders who become inactive for whatever reasons, with a small body like 6 person, we will have to hope all Senators stay active or it will be like a former Senate committee.

[Poirot]

I read the proposal for a future House and Senate in the Structure, size and elections of Senate section of the convention. My comment is not about the major points of the proposal but on a minor aspect. For the House it states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not sure what parties are considered major but I have a problem with party bosses selecting a representative when there is enough time left in the term for voters to democratically elect the replacement representative. I expect party people will not agree with me but the "no major" party representative has to face an election for replacement.

I want to also point out that it would me more logic to consider party affiliation of the ex-representative when he was elected and not at the time of the vacancy. Party affiliation might have been a factor in getting elected. Party affiliation   at time of vacancy possibly rewards a party welcoming a switcher and could distort the will of the voters. 

[Lincoln Republican]

I have to agree with Poirot on the above.

[Adam Griffin]

It's a large body. "Major parties" are defined (currently) as parties with 5 or more people. As it stands, we're nearly doubling the number of federal legislative offices. There is going to be more turnover. The elections will be every 2 months - not every 4 months - in the House. If you implement a system that requires there be a nationwide special election every time one of these seats go vacant, then we are going to be having multiple elections per month most likely. This will create election fatigue and it will lower overall voter participation in the long-run.

Furthermore, waiting in some cases up to 10 days to have a special election for a term that lasts all of 8 weeks is wasteful as crap. It's a short term. In addition, nobody knows yet the exact method for elections to the House. For all we know, it ends up being closed list PL-PR, in which case, party affiliation most certainly wouldn't "distort the will of the voters", who will be heard every two months anyway (however, I don't buy that this system distorts it, anyway). In fact, let's remember what will happen in a scenario in which a seat for a smaller party goes vacant. In all likelihood, a larger party is going to win it in a nationalized one-seat election. Unfortunately, there's no way to protect unaffiliated/independent seats from this concept, but my solution will at the very least prevent smaller parties from losing their representation to the top-two in a one-seat special election.

The last thing we need to be doing is watering down the significance of our primary election events by encouraging an explosion in special election activity in a bicameral chamber, which will happen if you decide to have special elections for individual legislative races when we are substantially expanding the number of people in office simultaneously. As a side-note: I've never liked the concept of one-seat at-large races anyway; they're basically presidential elections held for offices of relative insignificance (and that fact will become even greater and more frequent for seats in a larger, lower chamber). My proposed system will almost entirely do away with that concept - the regions hold special elections/appointments for the Senate, and the House will only have an at-large election in the event a minor party or independent seat goes vacant.

[Lincoln Republican]

But I still have a problem with replacement Representatives being chosen by "party bosses" as Poirot calls them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

But I still have a problem with replacement Representatives being chosen by "party bosses" as Poirot calls them.

     What would you suggest? Griffin is right that at-large special elections are not really an ideal solution.

[Türkisblau]

I applaud the delegates to the ConCon for defeating Adam's fascist, expansionist amendment.

[Poirot]

For all we know, it ends up being closed list PL-PR, in which case, party affiliation most certainly wouldn't "distort the will of the voters", who will be heard every two months anyway (however, I don't buy that this system distorts it, anyway).

The amendment is about party affiliation at time of vacancy, not party affiliation at election. A representative can do what it wants and not ask for approval in changing affiliation during the term. So someone is elected carrying the Labor banner, people in the party work to elect him. Two weeks later he swtiches party and then resigns. The new party, not Labor, gets to choose the replacement. It's a distorsion because I'm not sure the voters who supported the Labor candidate/representative will agree with the replacement made by another party 

[Poirot]

House election every two months will give more special elections? I imagined that with a shorter term it's easier to complete it. With a short period it's easier to figure out in advance if you will have the time for the job. Even if you get bored after one month, it's easier to put some effor for a few weeks to complete your mandate.

One of the problems with regional office and special elections is when people are elected or appointed to another office. There could be a problem for the House if candidates want to try for an offfice but also another office in case they are unsuccessful (like running for Senate and House, or regional office and House).

It's an elections game and I prefer the voters choose by elections who will represent them than some internal party choice. Since often people try to take advantage of the law as possible, I can see a party running a popular candidate to win a seat and then he resigns so the party can replace him with a newer player and gain experience and notoriety for next election.

Thinking about this and the possibility of candidates running for House and another office (and not swearing in thus needing a replacement) I've thought about something that will not require a special election (if it's absolutely out of the question). Create a system of alternates. If a vacancy occurs or someone does not swear in, the candidate who received the most votes without being elected is offered the job. The unsuccessful canddiates become the alternates' list. There could be a maximum of names on that list if you don't want all canddiates and write-ins to be eligible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The vacancy issue aside, a good aspect is that someone like Poirot would have an easier time getting in. Just 10 votes would be necessary under the current STV system with 11 seats up, to win a seat, and with it being At-Large, you can find those ten votes litterally anywhere in the country.

As for the vacancy issue, it is grave concern. Recall how Napoleon switch parties in rapid succession, deleted one of them and then resigned leaving people unsure which party he was even in when he made the resignation. Granted it is an extreme example, but in this game particularly, a Party list system has that downside.

Another extreme example. RowanBrandon was elected by the RPP in August 2009, and he left the party later that month before even taking office, only rejoining just weeks before his resignation in December. Since registrations are sometimes fluid, it is difficult for really have a system based on that premise.

[Adam Griffin]

But I still have a problem with replacement Representatives being chosen by "party bosses" as Poirot calls them.

It's worth noting that the parties in question can determine whatever method they would like to utilize with the current language. They can have a popular vote, a committee, party leader, etc. It's not just a matter of "party bosses" using it.

The amendment is about party affiliation at time of vacancy, not party affiliation at election. A representative can do what it wants and not ask for approval in changing affiliation during the term. So someone is elected carrying the Labor banner, people in the party work to elect him. Two weeks later he swtiches party and then resigns. The new party, not Labor, gets to choose the replacement. It's a distorsion because I'm not sure the voters who supported the Labor candidate/representative will agree with the replacement made by another party 

I mean, I've faced the concept of nasty little defectors in office arguably more than anyone else in recent years, and while the switching of a party member to another party prior to vacating the office is a possible occurrence, how can we prevent that from being an issue? The only way to do so is to say "a vacancy will be filled by the party of the ex-Representative at the time of his/her election", but I'm pretty sure that would be getting criticized even more than this. From what you've just argued, allowing for an at-large special election would be just as bad because the original will of the people for that seat will then be circumvented by what the nation as a whole wishes to do.

At the end of the day, though, these potential, small issues definitely do not outweigh the issues we'll face if we're having special elections every time a House seat goes vacant.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In spite of the number of times, Winfield has been supported/endorsed by first the RPP (Which he was a member of for a few months) and in recent times the Feds, he still seems to despise parties and regards them as evil by reflex.

[Poirot]

The only way to do so is to say "a vacancy will be filled by the party of the ex-Representative at the time of his/her election", but I'm pretty sure that would be getting criticized even more than this. From what you've just argued, allowing for an at-large special election would be just as bad because the original will of the people for that seat will then be circumvented by what the nation as a whole wishes to do.

To me it seems more fair for parties and less controversial to take party affiliation at time of election so I'm not sure I understand what the criticism would be apart from those who poach other parties membership. Going with affiliation at time of vacancy could cause more elections because it's possible someone elected with a party becomes independent before resigning. It also avoids the strategic resignations, and the switiching of parties just for revenge.

The principle I try to have is let the voters decide (whavever the consequence) when an office needs to filled, as much as the time permits. If the person will be in office for 2-3 weeks I think it's worth every candidate interested have a chance and let voters decide. Since some people don't like special elections I try to propose some things in the appointment conceptual frame. 

To reduce the need for special elections / replacements we could use the alternate list (candidates not elected with the most votes) for situations resulting in vacancies very early, like first week of the term: not swearing in, change of mind, someone appointed to Cabinet or other appointment, someone ran and got elected to two offices and choosing one of the two.

I see the calendar for House elections has December in the six months. I think some people don't find practical elections near Christmas so to reduce the number of elections at that time maybe we could use the other six months to skip December.

I don't know if campaining will suffer with elections every two months. You start a few weeks in your term and it's alreay time to think if you will run again, think of your content and start camapaining again. It gets exhausting.

If parties have the time to let members decide, I magine by vote, who their replacement will be there is nothing that can't be done in a special at-large election. Giving a party 2 days to inform members of the vacancy and ask for interest and 2 days to hold a vote, that could also be a special election. We could have quickie elections. We don't have to have a 3 day election starting on a Friday announced a week early. The quickie election could start in 2-3 days, any day of the week and last 2-3 days, something like that that could be done within 7 days.         

[Poirot]

I don't understand why the convention would want to let regions how the Senators will be chosen. In an elections game it seems the choice should be made by the voters directly. The discussion in a region will last two weeks so it will not bring activity. If a region chooses to let the assembly select a Senator, it strips the citizens of an opportunity to vote and gives the decision to only a few. A Senator could be chosen by three people in a region while a colleague in another region needs more than 15 votes to be elected. Some will need to campaign, some won't even need to.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't understand why the convention would want to let regions how the Senators will be chosen. In an elections game it seems the choice should be made by the voters directly. The discussion in a region will last two weeks so it will not bring activity. If a region chooses to let the assembly select a Senator, it strips the citizens of an opportunity to vote and gives the decision to only a few. A Senator could be chosen by three people in a region while a colleague in another region needs more than 15 votes to be elected. Some will need to campaign, some won't even need to.

Because it will force people to vote in regional legislature elections, either to ensure they select the right Senator or to ensure they preserve the popular election of Senators within the region.

[Poirot]

If a regional assembly having the power to select a Senator is a way to try to make disinterested voters go to regional voting booth, I'm not sure it's that good for regional activity life.

It could push political parties to win seats for the sake of winning seats and the selection power that goes with it. That could elect people who are less interested and motivated by the region's activities than having influence for selecting a Senator.

I'm trying to figure out how it would work. Candidate for assembly will be asked which Senate candidate they will support, so Senate candidates would have to declare during the time of the regional election; otherwise it's giving a blank cheque to a representative to make a decision.

[Türkisblau]

I concur with tmrthforu in that the Constitutional Convention seems to be moving slower than before.

Also, I would hope that there's more productive things for our delegates to do than debate over the names of the regions, which should be decided by the regions themselves anyways.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I concur with tmrthforu in that the Constitutional Convention seems to be moving slower than before.

Also, I would hope that there's more productive things for our delegates to do than debate over the names of the regions, which should be decided by the regions themselves anyways.

For once, we agree.

[Poirot]

One of the Presidential powers adopted is "To establish executive departments as necessary".

Is Executive department the same as Cabinet?

If so I'm wondering if the power given is mostly cosmetic, like change name of departments or add new specific responsaibility to exisiting departments, or total liberty to creat departments. If there is no limit a President could decide to multiply the number of departments and create many new offices to be filled.

[Poirot]

Again, what is the power of President to create departments? Is it about names, number of departments meaninf create new offices? Does the President need some approval of Senate (or if the Senate does not agree they just block nomination?   

[Poirot]

While watching debate at the ConCon I hear

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and I say to the tv: "It was a mistake!".

[Poirot]

I have a suggestion to add to the bill of rights. It could be 4.a)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4.a) Citizens of Atlasia have the fundamental right to choose their elected representatives, legislators or head of executive branch, by election for regular terms.

(regular terms is to exclude some cases when there is no special election and someone is appointed to office instead).

[Poirot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) Are most constitutional amendments not being included in the new constitution?

2) Has the convention adopted a number of members for a political party to be recognized as official? The 18th amendment specifies the number to be three.

3) What happens to Atlasians living in Canadian provinces? Can we still vote in Atlasian elections like citizens living abroad or the new constitution denies us the right to vote?