Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:21:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules  (Read 4416 times)
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 13, 2006, 08:12:08 PM »

Constitutional Amendment on Voter Registration and Voting Rules

Clause 6 of Section 2, Article V is hereby repealed



Sponsor: Sen. Dave 'Hawk'
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2006, 08:20:16 PM »

From the debate on the Federal Activity Requirements Revision Bill:

I certainly agree with much of your rationale against either a) reducing or b) abolishing federal activity requirements altogether Senator; however, you do raise my priori concern:


I understand that their concern is the increasingly shallow voter lists.


Indeed, there you have it, shallow voting lists Sad

When I was first elected, or rather more correctly jointly-elected, to the Senate last December there were 23 registered voters in the then District 4 and ever since it has has steadily eroded with each and every passing election cycle until now when it seems that the new districts shall average 11 registered voters

I think the decline to some extent can be blamed due to an increasing lack of competitive elections. My first election campaign was probably one of the most hard fought and tenacious Senate campaigns in the history of Atlasia. And, as election results go, it couldn't have been any closer, 10 votes each for myself and Bono, in both the first ballot and the run-off; hence, that history making split-term agreement. In fact, part of my decision not to seek re-election this month, stems from the fact that I had become an all-too intrenched incumbent and I wanting to make way for new blood and, ideally, a competitive race to succeed me

That said, I don't think the 25 post federal activity requirement in 8 weeks prior to the election is the real issue. I think its reasonable enough while, simultaneously, voicing opposition to such requirements; however, your arguments has swayed me more towards your position

The crux of the problem lies within the Second Constitution. Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 reads:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for four months, and any first-time registrant who fails to vote in the first scheduled Senate elections for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.

So there you have it, the twin evils of a lack of competitive elections and the effects of above clause only confound the problems we face. As elections become uncompetitive and the voter rolls are depleted as a result of people not voting, this in itself only serves to deteriorate the situation, like a two-edged sword, given that the fewer voters we have, then the less likely we are to have competitive elections

So, there you have it Senators Smiley, it's not so much federal activity requirements I oppose but Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Second Constitution and its effects Sad

In a nutshell, I believe we've lost more voters as a result of this clause then we ever have from voters not fulfilling federal activity requirements

Therefore, later this evening, I'll be introducing a Constitutional Amendment to remove said clause from the Second Constitution. Rest assured, on that, my convictions have seldom been stronger. I should have considered it months ago, and my apologies for not doing so sooner


Basically, sums how I feel up, however, I'm open to alternative amendments proposed by fellow Senators

'Hawk'
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2006, 08:25:41 PM »

Well the only problem with your opinion that I have, Senator Hawk, is that the voting lists would then become very much clogged with registrants who have not participated in Atlasia for a very long time. If this was in place from the earliest days of the Republic we would still have eminent people like Gustaf, JFK, or Dunn on the rolls but that would do nothing more than articificially inflate the voting population to include people who have not participated in a very long time.

On this note though I do believe that it is imperative that we increase the amount of time that a person can not vote to 4 elections, or 8 months, or possibly even 6 elections, equivalent to 12 months. I believe that this would allow voters names to remain on the record for a long enough period of time for them to easily become involved again in Atlasia without the task of re-registering as well as still work the duty of purging dead, superfluous and long unheard from voters from the lists.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2006, 08:26:58 PM »

Senator Jas responded and it is for him to state his position regarding my Amendment in this debate; while Peter Bell made this response:

I'd like to give a bit of background to the clause if I may, and importantly, why it was necessary in the older Republic.

When Atlasia was first founded, the federal census (and thus the districts) were based off the map of registered voters (this is how the districts were originally drawn before we even had a Constitution). When the first Constitution was drafted this scheme was maintained - it was soon realised that allowing voters to remain on the rolls indefinitely could chaos what were effectively rotten boroughs.

Imagine if a particular state or two were inundated with registrations and then most of those registrees went dead - this would leave an area with such a large population that it would cause a very small district centred around it. However, there would be so few active voters that it would either cause unchallenged elections, the movement of only a few people radically changing the actual political shape of a district, or worse still, somebody to get elected by stuffing the ballot box. Those of us who were around in those days remember only too well the December 2004 problems in New York and Pennsylvania that caused those elections to be utterly mired in controversy, and know only too well that it can happen here.

Faced with this problem, the founding fathers of the first Constitution decided in their wisdom to force all long term inactive voters (i.e. those not voting in 4 months) to be automatically purged from the rolls, thus allowing balanced, active districts to come out of redistricting.

When it came to the drafting of the second constitution, it was decided that the census should operate on the basis of those who voted at the last election. With hindsight, this would have been a much better solution to the original problem, but alas that is hindsight.

The provisions of Article V under discussion here were however not removed. The justifications for keeping it came down to a few arguments in my opinion:
*Retaining deadwood on the electoral roll is not healthy - it encourages candidates to bring everybody on the roll out to vote (legally active or not), who then don't hang around to suffer the consequences.
*It doesn't give a true picture of Atlasia - to date we have probably had several hundred, if not bordering on a thousand, registered voters. If these were all still on the rolls it might lead some to claim that Atlasia is fine when of course it isn't.
*If applied rectroactively, removing the provisions has many problems - records are far from complete and the original registration thread was deleted.

'Hawk'
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2006, 08:31:15 PM »

Well the only problem with your opinion that I have, Senator Hawk, is that the voting lists would then become very much clogged with registrants who have not participated in Atlasia for a very long time. If this was in place from the earliest days of the Republic we would still have eminent people like Gustaf, JFK, or Dunn on the rolls but that would do nothing more than articificially inflate the voting population to include people who have not participated in a very long time.

You raise a very fair point Smiley, Senator

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm favorable to extending the period from 2 elections to either 4 elections (8 months) or 6 elections (12 months). Both options, in my opinion, are certainly preferable to what we have now

Should you wish propose an amendment to the Amendment along those lines, I'd support it

'Hawk'
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2006, 11:14:37 PM »

I'd be amenable to either increasing the length of time before deregistering or making deregistering subject to requirement of posting activity.  (i.e. to stay registered you must either vote or you must have a certain number of posts in a particular period of time, say 50 or 100 posts in the 8 weeks before the last regular election)  that way people who are active Forum posters but aren't interested in a particular election don't have to go through the rigmarole of reregistration or casting a joke ballot just to stay on the rolls for the future.  (Note: the higher activity requirements than what is now required, would only be required of people who chose to not vote, people who vote but don't make many posts would be treated the same as they are now under this proposal.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2006, 08:32:17 AM »

Senator Jas responded and it is for him to state his position regarding my Amendment in this debate

This was the said response:
Indeed, that particular clause of the Constitution is not perfect.

The point of the provision, as I understand it, is that the voter roll should try to reasonably reflect the voting public and that those who patently aren't participating in the elections may be removed from the register - making it easier to handle and manage and to bettre reflect the active make up of Atlasia.

Believing that this aim is valid and still worth pursuing and also that the requirements are too strict, I would suggest that instead of outrightly abolishing the pertinant provision it may be preferable to amend it by increasing the time limits applicable before removal and applying this to all voters (first time registered or otherwise).

I'd also like to submit the incoming SoFA's opinion from his confirmation thread:
I support keeping the constitution as it currently is as far as Clause 6 of Section 2. Clearing deadwood of the voter rolls is important for gaining a true sense of Atlasia's population. Also, I do not see any infringement on rights with the law as it currently stands, because if one wishes to become active again, all he needs to do is register; it's not as if by being taken off the voter rolls, one cannot re-register for x amount of months.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2006, 08:35:53 AM »
« Edited: December 14, 2006, 08:41:03 AM by Jas »

I would submit the following amendment for consideration:

That Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for eight months for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.
Logged
Bdub
Brandon W
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,116
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2006, 08:38:18 AM »

I was going to introduce an amendment but Jas introduced what I was going to anyway.  The only problem I have with Jas amendment is the timeframe involved.  Eight months seems like a long time.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2006, 08:44:02 AM »

I was going to introduce an amendment but Jas introduced what I was going to anyway.  The only problem I have with Jas amendment is the timeframe involved.  Eight months seems like a long time.

I hesitated over the length of time, wavering between 6 and 8 months. Though, personally I would prefer six, I plumped for eight though largely because I feel it has a better chance of passing the Senate.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2006, 06:34:41 PM »

I would submit the following amendment for consideration:

That Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for eight months for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.


I consider your amendment to be a most reasonable compromise Senator and intend to support it

'Hawk'
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2006, 08:10:22 PM »

The only recommendation that I would have for Senator Jas would be to put the timeframe into elections or electoral cycles, non-inclusive of special elections. Eight months would be four elections. This would close a loophole in the system and would make it much more clear cut. This could be construed as meaning that it's 8 months from any federal election, even a special election or a runoff, until the person is stricken form the rolls then four complete federal general elections.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2006, 07:04:26 AM »

The only recommendation that I would have for Senator Jas would be to put the timeframe into elections or electoral cycles, non-inclusive of special elections. Eight months would be four elections. This would close a loophole in the system and would make it much more clear cut. This could be construed as meaning that it's 8 months from any federal election, even a special election or a runoff, until the person is stricken form the rolls then four complete federal general elections.

I'll certainly consider it, but I'm a little tired (middle of exams) so forgive me if I misunderstand, but could you clarify would this suggestion therefore disregard any votes in a special or run-off election, for the purposes of voter registration?
If so, why shouldn't such votes be counted for this purpose?
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2006, 02:00:31 PM »

The only recommendation that I would have for Senator Jas would be to put the timeframe into elections or electoral cycles, non-inclusive of special elections. Eight months would be four elections. This would close a loophole in the system and would make it much more clear cut. This could be construed as meaning that it's 8 months from any federal election, even a special election or a runoff, until the person is stricken form the rolls then four complete federal general elections.

I'll certainly consider it, but I'm a little tired (middle of exams) so forgive me if I misunderstand, but could you clarify would this suggestion therefore disregard any votes in a special or run-off election, for the purposes of voter registration?

They should be counted by registered voters should only be taken off the roles after missing 4 national elections. So while it can count for you to vote in a special election or a runoff it cannot count against you not to. I hope you understand.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2006, 12:03:13 PM »

The only recommendation that I would have for Senator Jas would be to put the timeframe into elections or electoral cycles, non-inclusive of special elections. Eight months would be four elections. This would close a loophole in the system and would make it much more clear cut. This could be construed as meaning that it's 8 months from any federal election, even a special election or a runoff, until the person is stricken form the rolls then four complete federal general elections.

I'll certainly consider it, but I'm a little tired (middle of exams) so forgive me if I misunderstand, but could you clarify would this suggestion therefore disregard any votes in a special or run-off election, for the purposes of voter registration?

They should be counted by registered voters should only be taken off the roles after missing 4 national elections. So while it can count for you to vote in a special election or a runoff it cannot count against you not to. I hope you understand.

OK, I get it now. If you put forward an amendment worded accordingly, I'll withdraw my own.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2006, 08:59:01 PM »

I would like to submit the following amendment for consideration:

That Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for eight months for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. The said voter may only be deregistered after missing four federal elections, not including runoffs and special elections. A vote in a special election or runoff will be counted towards activity the same as a vote in a regular federal election. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.

I hope that makes some sense.
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2006, 09:10:44 AM »

Given Colin's submission, I withdraw my amendment from consideration.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2006, 08:00:01 PM »
« Edited: December 28, 2006, 08:22:46 PM by Senator Dave 'Hawk' PPT »

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


That Article V, Section 2, Clause 6 of the Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Any registered voter who fails to vote in elections for eight months for which he is qualified to vote shall have his registration no longer considered valid. The said voter may only be deregistered after missing four federal elections, not including runoffs and special elections. A vote in a special election or runoff will be counted towards activity the same as a vote in a regular federal election. This clause shall not be construed to deny a forum user the right to register anew.


'Hawk'
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2006, 08:07:18 PM »

Aye

'Hawk'
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2006, 09:19:37 PM »

Aye
Logged
Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2006, 09:50:57 PM »

Aye.
Logged
Bdub
Brandon W
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,116
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2006, 10:34:03 PM »

Aye
Logged
DWPerry
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674
Puerto Rico


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2006, 01:42:33 AM »

AYE
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2006, 02:02:26 AM »

Abstain.  I'm a little concerned that 8 months may be a bit too long without some other technique to prune dead wood as opposed to merely dormant, but not so concerned as to oppose this.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2006, 01:46:40 PM »

Aye
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 12 queries.