Northern Regional Committee discussion thread

[cinyc]

The committee has passed the following elections bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This bill provides for the democratic election of both of our Region's Senators, as well as for referendums on the first and second amendments to the Constitution. Per Section 3, candidates for Senate have until 12:00 AM (EST) on Thursday to declare.

Senate candidates who have already declared now need to specify which seat he or she is running for.  The Class I seat will have a four-month term through October.  The Class II seat will have a two-month term through August.  Anyone else who declares needs to so specify, too.

[Poirot]

This is the amendment proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a question on the two thirds vote in the assembly. Exactly two thirds is enough, it's not more than two thirds. So if the assembly is 3 person, two Yes vote is enough ?

I think in a 5 person assembly in the NE we required at least three yes votes and two thirds to pass in case there is very low turnout. If there is 3 a person assembly, 1 yes, 1 abstain and 1 not voting is considered 100% approve. It's not a very high treshold for constituional change but I guess that is what small assembly can do.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This is the amendment proposal:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a question on the two thirds vote in the assembly. Exactly two thirds is enough, it's not more than two thirds. So if the assembly is 3 person, two Yes vote is enough ?

Correct - whenever the Assembly consists of three seats, a minimum of two votes will be required to propose amendments to the Constitution. Keep in mind that these amendments will still have to be ratified by the public in order to become operative, which should provide a check to a flippant Assembly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I recall, the old Senate counted "two thirds" as "two thirds of all sitting members." Assuming the Assembly follows that precedent (and I don't see why it wouldn't, as it is a fairly standard practice throughout Atlasia), a 1-0 vote such as you described would not be sufficient to forward a proposed amendment to the voters.

[Poirot]

The committee should finish its job of writing the regional constitution so we have clear rules and not make retroactive rules to justify action that is not in its mandate.

The process for the federal amendment is a succession of dubious legal actions.

[cinyc]

The committee should finish its job of writing the regional constitution so we have clear rules and not make retroactive rules to justify action that is not in its mandate.

The process for the federal amendment is a succession of dubious legal actions.

The end of the committee's business is near.  I expect that the constitution will be presented for a public vote within the next week, two weeks max.  We now have a bill of rights and will be debating more technical issues with the constitution in the next few days.

[Poirot]

The capital of the region being in the constitution it is in the mandate of the committee to select the location. There was even a poll for citizens to give an opinion.

The delagates have chosen New York City. I think it received 3 first votes and 2 second votes out of 6 ballots, so it got high preferences. Two ex-mideasterners had NYC in their top 2

When I arrived in Atlasia the Northeast had months of plans to move the capital. I have lived a full circle it seems. I hope the decision of the delegates is respected. It was their job to make a decision.

[Kingpoleon]

Everyone but evergreen had NYC in their top two, and evergreen is a former Northeasterners.

This divide along former regional lines is unhealthy for our region. I ask those obsessively opposed to NYC to cease, as this is the voice of your elected officials overwhelmingly supporting NYC.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think having a referendum is an acceptable compromise, even if it's (ugh) NYC.

[Poirot]

I see an item about organizing elections until the regularly schedule election take place.

Does it mean we will have regional elections early August and another one 2 or 3 weeks later?

I was thinking maybe extend the normal term by 1 or 2 weeks so we don't have elections almost back to back. The assembly will need to adopt rules, select a speaker before starting to debate so the extra 1 or 2 weeks could serve to do that.

I think we have a Senate regional election in August so we might have a regularly schedule election anyway at the planned regional election date (if they are together, I haven't verified the dates of elections). 

[Clyde1998]

I see an item about organizing elections until the regularly schedule election take place.

Does it mean we will have regional elections early August and another one 2 or 3 weeks later?

I was thinking maybe extend the normal term by 1 or 2 weeks so we don't have elections almost back to back. The assembly will need to adopt rules, select a speaker before starting to debate so the extra 1 or 2 weeks could serve to do that.

I think we have a Senate regional election in August so we might have a regularly schedule election anyway at the planned regional election date (if they are together, I haven't verified the dates of elections). 

If we have an election in early August, then I believe we shouldn't have the late August election - seems pointless having a 2-3 week term, as hardly anything would be achieved in that time. Although, it should continue it's standard cycle following this - so the next election would be in late October.

[Poirot]

If the committee goes back on a decision and decide not to decide, maybe they could let voters decide other aspects, like how the assembly is elected. There were different proposals for that and the committee doesn't seem to backtrack on that decision.

I read about a bill that exists in private and the committee should try to discuss as much as possible in public so citizens know what is going on. Also a bill sounds like legislating which the commitee can't do.   

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If the committee goes back on a decision and decide not to decide, maybe they could let voters decide other aspects, like how the assembly is elected. There were different proposals for that and the committee doesn't seem to backtrack on that decision.

I read about a bill that exists in private and the committee should try to discuss as much as possible in public so citizens know what is going on. Also a bill sounds like legislating which the commitee can't do. 

A bill isn't being voted on.

[Kingpoleon]

If the committee goes back on a decision and decide not to decide, maybe they could let voters decide other aspects, like how the assembly is elected. There were different proposals for that and the committee doesn't seem to backtrack on that decision.

I read about a bill that exists in private and the committee should try to discuss as much as possible in public so citizens know what is going on. Also a bill sounds like legislating which the commitee can't do.   

As far as I know, this Committee has no bill existing in private and never has. Could you please reference where you read this with a direct quote?

[Poirot]

In the committee thread.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=237585.msg5181729#msg5181729

[Kingpoleon]

Perhaps it's somewhere in the thread and a.scott is just being polite. I have not been contacted about such a bill privately, and I am insulted if such a bill does exist in PM format without my knowledge or the knowledge of other members of the Committee.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The bill, essentially, is what I've been proposing for the last week or so on the capital referendum.  I didn't want to post it publicly because I didn't want to give the impression that it's legislation we're voting on (which it's not); merely a suggestion for how the referendum process should play out.  I apologize for any misunderstandings; I'll just post the full proposal for scrutiny:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kingpoleon]

As I clicked reply, a.scott posted his suggestion. I was about to do the same within a minute, and I appreciate his openness.

[Blair]

With this bill we'd have to wait for the Governors election wouldn't we?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

With this bill we'd have to wait for the Governors election wouldn't we?

Yes.

[Poirot]

The bill that is not a bill called a bill....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The committee passed a bill. It doesn't seem to be part of the constitution.
The commitees do not have mandate to legislate. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

That bill simply authorizes the referendum process.

[cinyc]

The bill that is not a bill called a bill....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The committee passed a bill. It doesn't seem to be part of the constitution.
The commitees do not have mandate to legislate. 

What specifically are you referring to?  The committee obviously has authority to set forth voting regulations for ratification of the constitution, and the provision requiring a referendum on the capital is in the proposed constitution.  Otherwise, there would be anarchy.  Do abstentions count?  What's the threshold for an affirmative vote? 

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The bill in question allows the Committee to carry out the final Article of the Constitution, which calls for a referendum on ratification, a simultaneous vote on the capital city, and a successive election for Governor and Assembly. Article X allows the Committee to legislate on matters pertaining to the establishment of the Regional Constitution.