Second Modified Electoral System Reform Bill

[MasterJedi]

Second Modified Electoral System Reform Bill


Section 5 of the Electoral System Reform Act is stricken and replaced with:

Section 5: Tied Run-off Elections
If the Run-off Election procedure specified in section 4 results in a tie, then:

1. One of the tied candidates may concede their portion of the term. The rules for determining the winner shall proceed based on as if the number tied candidates is reduced by one.
2. The two candidates shall each serve a Senate session.
   a. If one and only one of the tied candidates is an incumbent, then that candidate shall serve the first session.
   b. If the same two candidates were serving as co-senators as a result of a tie in the last election, then the candidate who served the second session during the previous term shall serve the first session this term.
c. Else the candidate whose name comes first alphabetically shall serve the first session.
3. In the event of a tie between more than two candidates:
   a. The tied candidates may make any agreement they see fit.
   b. If an agreement can not be made by (a), the Senate shall either:
      i.  Select one candidate to serve the entire term.
      ii. Select a schedule that will allow all tied candidates to serve a portion of the term.
4. Only the sitting senator may vote on legislation.
5. When the President makes a nomination, both co-senators shall vote, but their vote shall only be counted as a single vote. If the two votes oppose each other then their vote shall be counted as a vote in favor of the nominee.
6. If one co-senator is elected or appointed to another office, than the other co-senator shall assume all the role of a full senator.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. Dave Hawk

[Bacon King]

5. When the President makes a nomination, both co-senators shall vote, but their vote shall only be counted as a single vote. If the two votes oppose each other then their vote shall be counted as a vote in favor of the nominee.

Here's my only problem with the bill. If the two votes are opposed to each other, should it not be considered an abstention?

[jerusalemcar5]

Second Modified Electoral System Reform Bill


Section 5 of the Electoral System Reform Act is stricken and replaced with:

Section 5: Tied Run-off Elections
If the Run-off Election procedure specified in section 4 results in a tie, then:

1. One of the tied candidates may concede their portion of the term. The rules for determining the winner shall proceed based on as if the number tied candidates is reduced by one.
2. The two candidates shall each serve a Senate session.
   a. If one and only one of the tied candidates is an incumbent, then that candidate shall serve the first session.
   b. If the same two candidates were serving as co-senators as a result of a tie in the last election, then the candidate who served the second session during the previous term shall serve the first session this term.
c. Else the candidate whose name comes first alphabetically shall serve the first session.
3. In the event of a tie between more than two candidates:
   a. The tied candidates may make any agreement they see fit.
   b. If an agreement can not be made by (a), the Senate shall either:
      i.  Select one candidate to serve the entire term.
      ii. Select a schedule that will allow all tied candidates to serve a portion of the term.
4. Only the sitting senator may vote on legislation.
5. When the President makes a nomination, both co-senators shall vote, but their vote shall only be counted as a single vote. If the two votes oppose each other then their vote shall be counted as a vote in favor of the nominee.
6. If one co-senator is elected or appointed to another office, than the other co-senator shall assume all the role of a full senator.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. Dave Hawk

My issues:

1) Clause 2c might cause people to start competeing to see who can put more Zs in front of their name.  Should this be based on the original name?  Or is there some other way to stop that?

2) Clause 5, like Senator Bacon King pointed out, is not very democratic.  I agree with Bacon King's unofficial amendment to make opposing votes count as an abstention, because that is only fair.  Also, it doesn't address if one wants to abstain and one wants to vote yes/no.  Does this cause a yes/no vote, just a yes vote, or an abstention?

[Democratic Hawk]

Since Brandon wrote it, I'd welcome his thoughts as to the points raised by Senator Bacon King and jerusalemcar5; and any more, which might be raised

'Hawk'

[Keystone Phil]

My issues:

1) Clause 2c might cause people to start competeing to see who can put more Zs in front of their name.  Should this be based on the original name?  Or is there some other way to stop that?

That's the main problem.

5. When the President makes a nomination, both co-senators shall vote, but their vote shall only be counted as a single vote. If the two votes oppose each other then their vote shall be counted as a vote in favor of the nominee.

And that's just ridiculous. Both Senators shall vote? No. If that stays then I will be voting against this bill.

[Bacon King]

I propose the following amendment:

Clause 2C is changed to read as:

Else the candidate whose name upon initial registration to the Atlas forum comes first alphabetically shall serve the first session.

---

I also propose to amend the bill by removing Clause 5.

[Emsworth]

How about allowing the individual who has been a registered for the longest period of time to serve the first half of the term? This seems to be less arbitrary than considering the letter of the alphabet with which an individual's username starts.

[Keystone Phil]

How about allowing the individual who has been a registered for the longest period of time to serve the first half of the term? This seems to be less arbitrary than considering the letter of the alphabet with which an individual's username starts.

I was thinking that, too, but even though it's a matter of who gets the first term, some will complain about taking it out on the "newbies." I'd still support this over an alphabetical determination.

[Sam Spade]

How about allowing the individual who has been a registered for the longest period of time to serve the first half of the term? This seems to be less arbitrary than considering the letter of the alphabet with which an individual's username starts.

I was thinking that, too, but even though it's a matter of who gets the first term, some will complain about taking it out on the "newbies." I'd still support this over an alphabetical determination.

Actually, it is usually more advantageous to serve the second part of the term.  That way you would be the incumbent if you chose to run for election as Senator for the next term.

[Bacon King]

How about allowing the individual who has been a registered for the longest period of time to serve the first half of the term? This seems to be less arbitrary than considering the letter of the alphabet with which an individual's username starts.

I was thinking that, too, but even though it's a matter of who gets the first term, some will complain about taking it out on the "newbies." I'd still support this over an alphabetical determination.

Actually, it is usually more advantageous to serve the second part of the term.  That way you would be the incumbent if you chose to run for election as Senator for the next term.

So, the way I see it, any division other than an arbitrary one would be at least nominally unfair. Considering that which individual's username comes first alphabetically is essentially random, I prefer to keep it at that.

Or we could just have them flip a coin or something.

[Keystone Phil]

Or we could just have them flip a coin or something.

Yeah but who would do it and how would we be able to know the real result? Coin flipping would be pass.

[Ebowed]

All right, I would suggest the following amendment to the bill.


The text of the bill is stricken and replaced with:

Section 5 of the Electoral System Reform Act is stricken and replaced with:

Section 5: Tied Run-off Elections
If the Run-off Election procedure specified in section 4 results in a tie, then:

1. One of the tied candidates may concede their portion of the term. The rules for determining the winner shall proceed based on as if the number tied candidates is reduced by one.
2. The two candidates shall each serve a Senate session.
   a. The two candidates will be allowed to determine the order in which the terms are split.
   b. If no agreement is reached regarding the order of the terms that each candidate serves in, if one of the tied candidates is an incumbent, then that candidate shall serve the first session.
   c. If both of the tied candidates are incumbents, due to redistricting or other circumstances, or if neither of the candidates are incumbents, and no agreement has been reached regarding the order of the terms that each candidate serves in, then the candidates shall serve in alphabetical order, going by their names used on the Registered Voter Roll.
3. In the event of a tie between more than two candidates:
   a. The tied candidates may make any agreement they see fit.
   b. If an agreement cannot be made by (a), the Senate shall either:
      i.  Select one candidate to serve the entire term.
      ii. Select a schedule that will allow all tied candidates to serve a portion of the term.


I think that having co-senators at all is a really bad idea and makes for unintended but unnecessary bureaucracy.  While it may be unfair that one Senator gets to vote on cabinet appointments while another does not, that's just something the two candidates should consider when agreeing the order in which they'll split the term.

[MasterJedi]

I'll introduce that amendment for you Ebowed.

[Bacon King]

Considering that Ebowed',s amendment majorly pwns mine, I hereby withdraw my amendments.

[Keystone Phil]

I refuse to support any amendment that involves determining who serves first by an alphabetical order. I, therefore, introduce an amendment which is the same as the President's/Senator Jedi's but with one change:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ebowed]

Well, the proposed amendment specifically states that the names used for the determination of order will be taken from the Registered Voter Roll - so if someone puts Z's in front of their name during the election to secure a potential last term in office, it would not work.

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

The text of the bill is stricken and replaced with:

Section 5 of the Electoral System Reform Act is stricken and replaced with:

Section 5: Tied Run-off Elections
If the Run-off Election procedure specified in section 4 results in a tie, then:

1. One of the tied candidates may concede their portion of the term. The rules for determining the winner shall proceed based on as if the number tied candidates is reduced by one.
2. The two candidates shall each serve a Senate session.
   a. The two candidates will be allowed to determine the order in which the terms are split.
   b. If no agreement is reached regarding the order of the terms that each candidate serves in, if one of the tied candidates is an incumbent, then that candidate shall serve the first session.
   c. If both of the tied candidates are incumbents, due to redistricting or other circumstances, or if neither of the candidates are incumbents, and no agreement has been reached regarding the order of the terms that each candidate serves in, then the candidates shall serve in alphabetical order, going by their names used on the Registered Voter Roll.
3. In the event of a tie between more than two candidates:
   a. The tied candidates may make any agreement they see fit.
   b. If an agreement cannot be made by (a), the Senate shall either:
      i.  Select one candidate to serve the entire term.
      ii. Select a schedule that will allow all tied candidates to serve a portion of the term.

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[ilikeverin]

Yup

[Gabu]

Aye.

[Bacon King]

Aye.

[Democratic Hawk]

Aye ; however, I will be introducing a further amendment concerning a matter this one doesn't address but which the original did

'Hawk'

[WMS]

Aye.

[Keystone Phil]

Nay

[MasterJedi]

This amendment has passed.