Proportional Representation Bill [Passed]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

Here's a possible solution; take into account sitting Senators (does that make sense? I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how clear putting it like that is...)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

Yeeesssss... but if enough Senators resign during a given Senate, the Senate could well fall below its quorum.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but to see this reform brought down by divisions over an extraneous issue such as this would be a blow to both this chamber and to the effectiveness of the entire Atlasian government.

It would be the correct thing to do if we are trying to stick with Atlasian tradition.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here's a possible solution; take into account sitting Senators (does that make sense? I know what I mean, but I'm not sure how clear putting it like that is...)

Bump

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As opposed to the senator being replaced, or taking into consideration who is and is no longer in the Senate vs. just the fact that there is a vacancy.

I mean take into consideration during the count.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here's an example;

Five people are elected; two from party A, two from party B and one from party C.

Party C's Senator resigns his seat.

In the by-election, Party A and Party B's seats are taken into account during the count.

Party A's candidate polls 12 votes.
Party B's candidate polls 10 votes.
Party C's candidate polls 5 votes.

As Parties A and B already hold two seats, their votes are divided by three, while Party C (which would currently lack an incumbent Senator) would have its vote divided by one. So:

Party A: 4
Party B: 3
Party C: 5

Party C's candidate holds the seat.

Not perfect (far from it actually), but as a compromise?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I may be alone on this one, but Atlasia is so intensely election-centric that I think it should take something more than a simple vote by the Senate to significantly change the way Senators are elected.

Changing elections is, for the most part, changing the rules of "the game."  And anything that changes the rules of the game should be run by the public at large.  I'm open to changing the rules, but only after a strong consensus has been reached.  I don't think six senators and the signature of a president is necessarily enough.

The Bill is essentially tied to the End to Districts Amendment cuurently also on the Senate floor. Indeed 6 Senators and the President would be enough to pass this bill, but the the bill is incumbent upon pasage of the Amendment which will require (at a minimum) 7 Senators and a majority vote in 4 of Atlasia's 5 regions.

That is why I've been urging consensus, because that's the only way to get any constitutional reform passed.

I was actually speaking to the fact that if both were passed (and the amendment ratified), then the Senate could, in the future, fundamentally change the game with the approval of a scant 7 people total—which is what, fewer than 10%?  That is what I oppose.

Except that an amendment would have to be approved by the electorate. Well, no, that's not true; the electorate of a given number of regions. Amendments have been approved by the electorate overall but still failed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aye

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Abstain

[Filuwaúrdjan]

aye