Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Verily]

I would strongly urge those who broadly support the move to PR-STV to vote in favour of the amendment.

Nay.

Dare I ask, why the Nay vote here but the Aye vote on the previous version?

Since I have been accused of being predictable in my voting, so much so that others can make assumptions about my beliefs, I am now introducing a certain amount of randomness in voting patterns on issues I don't care about.

I must say that, if that's serious, it greatly reduces my opinion of you as a Senator.

[Verily]

Another solution is to simply have a vacancy until the next election. In the current District system, that would mean an entire District going unrepresented, but in an STV system it just means the number of Senators falls from 10 to 9.

[Verily]

On the other hand, if enough Senators resign, a by-election for all the seats at once doesn't cause the same problems that a single IRV by-election would. A two-seat STV by-election would be far more palatable to those opposed to by-elections, I think.

[Verily]

I would like to ask those voting Nay what, exactly, they find objectionable about this amendment.

[Verily]

I would like to ask those voting Nay what, exactly, they find objectionable about this amendment.

It's undemocratic

Yet surely each Senator would choose people most alike to themselves politically, meaning that, unless you vote on personality over politics, this candidate would have been your choice if you voted for the departing Senator.

[Verily]

I would like to ask those voting Nay what, exactly, they find objectionable about this amendment.

It's undemocratic

Yet surely each Senator would choose people most alike to themselves politically, meaning that, unless you vote on personality over politics, this candidate would have been your choice if you voted for the departing Senator.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it democratic.

I seem to recall you opposing the idea of calling a referendum on each bill passed, if requested. How is this different?

[Verily]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

But it isn't as if these are long-term appointments. Some of the term would have already passed, so it's really no different than a Governor appointing a Regional Senator to fill a term now.

[Verily]

Well the worst part of this proposal is how the Senator can change his list at will. You might just as well have a resigning Senator just appoint a successor. That's pretty damn undemocratic.
I might vote for something with a fixed replacement for every candidate, declared before the election - as in France. Or an Open List system, which would also avoid the question (but open the new question of which system of proportionality to use).

But it isn't as if these are long-term appointments. Some of the term would have already passed, so it's really no different than a Governor appointing a Regional Senator to fill a term now.

Which is bad enough, and is a holdover from US laws. But is not the same as this - naming your own successor is just... well it goes very much against the grain of what democracy is supposed to be about.

But the successor isn't anywhere close to permanent, serving only a few months. That doesn't seem undemocratic at all.

Although you do bring up a good point about "threatening" replacements -- I'd prefer a fixed list, myself.

[Verily]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

I don't think the government has any place (or ability) to dictate how the parties can or cannot select their candidates.

[Verily]

Introducing (an Jas' behalf, but I'm ready to vote for this) the following amendment:

That Sections 18 & 19 of the bill be replaced with the following and subsequent sections be renumbered accordingly:

Vacancies
18. In the event of a vacancy arising for whatever reason, where the concerned ex-Senator is a member of a major party (i.e. one having 5 or more members) at the time the vacancy arises, the same party shall be responsible for filling the vacancy by whatever means they deem fit.
19. The party shall have 10 days from the arising of the vacancy within which to give official notice to the Department of Forum Affairs of who they nominate to take up the vacant seat.
20. Where:
(i) the ex-Senator is not a member of a major party at the time the vacancy arises;
or (ii) the party fails to comply with section 19;
a by-election for the seat shall be held on a nationwide basis and in accordance with the terms outlined within F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act.
21. Where there exists any doubt as to party affiliation; major party status; or time of vacancy arising, it shall be the responsibility of the Department of Forum Affairs to clarify these matters upon request by any citizen.
22. Any decision of the Department under section 21 may be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may in its discretion suspend any relevant time periods applicable under this Act or under F.L. 14-2 Consolidated Electoral Reform Act until the Court reaches a decision.

I think I'll support this to, as it is more in spirit with PR, and a by-election really isn't. However, I disagree with a party being able to replace Senators by "any way they deem fit"; I think there needs to be a democratic process involved in this replacement (as well as in STV as a whole; perhaps I will introduce an amendment to hit two birds with one stone in this regard)

I don't think the government has any place (or ability) to dictate how the parties can or cannot select their candidates.

You mean in principle? If this is the way the Senate feels, then I will oppose Lewis' amendment as well.

I mean legally. I don't think the government can do that.

[Verily]

Finally, the bickering ceases.

[Verily]

Abstain

[Verily]

I'm changing my vote to Nay because I know Rob won't vote, and I'd like Jas to weigh in.

[Verily]

I motion for cloture.

[Verily]

Aye

[Verily]

A resounding Aye.