SB 2017-112: Deregistration Waiting Period Act (Passed)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Scott

I hereby open this floor for debate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I like this bill. People deregistering in the heat of passion is proving to be a big problem.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It seems that at the end of every presidential election, we have a swath of people drop off the voter rolls because they have deregistered in grievance at either a person or party.  Most of the time, there are individuals who come to regret what they did in the heat of a moment.  Letting deregistrations take effect a week after they are requested will reduce the number of permanent ragequits that ensue in high periods of Atlas drama.

[Donerail]

I don't have a problem with this legislation, though given recent antics in the registration thread, making it crystal-clear how you cancel the request seems important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Barnes]

In the same vein as Senator SJoyce, I'll propose the following amendment, to wit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just so no one is surprised by it, I will definately be voting no on this. I am not a supporter of the "deregistration movement", I think that even with the safeguard against legal mess in this bill, it is still a bad idea to have de-registration in place.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=145362.msg3121965#msg3121965

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=172428.0


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=79131.0


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=78060.0

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=35015.0

That being said I would probably vote for this when it comes to the house but I have long been skeptical of the process of deregistration and recent events have only confirmed my concerns.

[Barnes]

I personally do not understand the opposition to deregistration as people who choose to leave will do so regardless and we might as well allow a framework within the game to recognize that.

Now, within that broad idea, I absolutely agree that the process should be safeguarded from abuse and frivolous antics; for example, as my proposed amendment addresses.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yeah, I'm really not comfortable with Congress telling citizens they cannot disenroll from a political game, and allowing the Registrar General to unilaterally void a citizen's request strikes me as very inappropriate. In light of the fact that the 60-day waiting period was repealed with the Fourth Constitution, meaning deregistered posters can re-register immediately, I don't see why this bill is necessary at all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, I'm really not comfortable with Congress telling citizens they cannot disenroll from a political game, and allowing the Registrar General to unilaterally void a citizen's request strikes me as very inappropriate. In light of the fact that the 60-day waiting period was repealed with the Fourth Constitution, meaning deregistered posters can re-register immediately, I don't see why this bill is necessary at all.

From 2008 until 2013, you couldn't deregister from the game. Only way to leave was to stop voting and fall off the rolls. Hence the joke being widely popularized that "you can checkout anytime you like, but you can never leave".

The reason for this was a chaotic situation in July 2008 concerning the long term Southeast Senator Sam Spade, losing his seat. There was a pretty broad consensus that deregistration was problematic, that it lead to chaotic situations and that it placed an unnecessary burden on the SoFA/RG/SoFE. Almost every time it came up it was met with intense opposition from the holder of said office and for a long time, myself, Duke, Bgwah, Napoleon and even Al (yes that Al) at one point, formed sort of an unholy alliance against its reinstatement. This only changed when Duke became Marokai's VP and he flipped on the issue. A lot of the Senators were new, many of them were from centrist political orientations and the Maroduke administration was able to convince them to support it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't have a problem with this legislation, though given recent antics in the registration thread, making it crystal-clear how you cancel the request seems important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this an amendment, SJoyce?

In the same vein as Senator SJoyce, I'll propose the following amendment, to wit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm going to deem this amendment unfriendly because I believe that individuals should have the ability to deregister for any reason, and I don't want to create the potential for friction between the Registrar General and the person who is deregistering.

Still, I've considered Truman's points and although we've repealed the penalty for people who want to re-register, I do believe that people deregistering in the heat of anger is a real problem in this game and I think we should make some attempt to discourage this sad tradition of exclusion and intimidation in our politics.
---

With that being said, the Senate will now vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Barnes.  Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay.

[Chief Justice Keef]

NAY.

[Barnes]

Aye.

The purpose of my amendment is to make the job of the RG simpler. Why should it be a burden to ask someone who wants to deregister to have to actually post "Deregister" instead of a confusing, illogical mass of text from which the RG must parse meaning?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

The purpose of my amendment is to make the job of the RG simpler. Why should it be a burden to ask someone who wants to deregister to have to actually post "Deregister" instead of a confusing, illogical mass of text from which the RG must parse meaning?

My understanding is that that's all it takes to deregister.  The language of your amendment is rather vague-sounding to me.

[Barnes]

So, let's post a few examples:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You see, why should the burden be placed on the RG when all you have to do is post one word?

Secondly, I don't know how it could be construed as "vague sounding" as it allows the RG to have the teeth to enforce their own responsibilities. If, however, the amendment is not adopted by the Senate, I could propose a similar idea which marks out rejection based solely on "improper" posts; that is, posted in the wrong location, etc.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=216010.0


Something similar from 2015. A bill to create a waiting period post banning before people are removed from the rolls. This was following the mistaken ban of JoMCar.

During the debate of said act (which as memory serves me was delayed by Blairs deregistration and he was Speaker at the time), Adam Griffin was banned in connection with the ModLeaks fiasco.


I do not thing there is a statute presently mandating for the removal of banned posters from the rolls, but I could be wrong on that. I know the Deregistration of Banned Members Act, was removed with the reset.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay. If the RG cannot immediately recognize a post as a deregistration, I would think that failure alone would constitute a defense against any inaction on the RG's part.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Secondly, I don't know how it could be construed as "vague sounding" as it allows the RG to have the teeth to enforce their own responsibilities. If, however, the amendment is not adopted by the Senate, I could propose a similar idea which marks out rejection based solely on "improper" posts; that is, posted in the wrong location, etc.

I can't speak for Scott, but I also thought the language was a bit confusing; it sounded to me like the RG was allowed to annul deregistrations that she thought were made frivolously (i.e. the poster did not have a good reason to deregister). I see now what you were trying to do, but I think it would be better to simply say, "in order to deregister, a citizen must post [blah blah blah] in the New Register Thread" to avoid any ambiguities.

[Barnes]

No, that wasn't my intention in the slightest, but rewording the amendment is something that I think we can handle fairly easily.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Nay on Senator Barnes' amendment.

I don't believe it is exactly necessary to give the RG that power. For many deregistration posts, the intent is clear enough that the power granted in this amendment would be superfluous.

[Adam Griffin]

Assuming it hasn't been re-implemented post-reset, just put back into place the restriction that doesn't let anybody de-register between 24 hours preceding a federal election and 24 hours following a federal election.

It really doesn't have to be that complicated. Excluding that scenario, storming out of the game impulsively is a long-standing Atlasian tradition.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

With one vote in favor and four against, the amendment is not adopted.

For the record, Truman is correct.  I can support a rewording of the amendment to avoid ambiguities.

[Barnes]

I move the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The amendment is friendly.  Senators have 24 hours to object.

[windjammer]

I mean,
No offense as I know that you are all having good intentions.

But there is a potential massive problem with this bill: if you let citizens have the possibility to change their mind for a next week, they will get harassed by massive sociopaths!!!

Why not simply pass the former rule: no deregistration during the election?