Torie Senate Surgery Office [Pacific Region]

[Хahar 🤔]

Good job! But add this:

2. All parties shall have a party chair. Elections for party chair must take place at least once every six months.

[Хahar 🤔]

Change "six months" to "no more than six months". The obvious time to hold a vote would be at a party convention, and those are held somewhat irregularly.

[Хahar 🤔]

Change "six months" to "no more than six months". The obvious time to hold a vote would be at a party convention, and those are held somewhat irregularly.

     I have reservations about that change only because it seems like the government is deciding too much party policy. It seems like such a plan would basically be asking the parties to hold conventions at least once every six months (then again, we ARE setting guidelines for when primaries are held, which is already plenty of good ole guvmint in our parties ). I'll tentatively add it now, though I would like to see what Torie, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about it.

Well, the 2nd draft forced parties to hold elections every 6 months. I think this is far more flexible.

[Хahar 🤔]

Change "six months" to "no more than six months". The obvious time to hold a vote would be at a party convention, and those are held somewhat irregularly.

     I have reservations about that change only because it seems like the government is deciding too much party policy. It seems like such a plan would basically be asking the parties to hold conventions at least once every six months (then again, we ARE setting guidelines for when primaries are held, which is already plenty of good ole guvmint in our parties ). I'll tentatively add it now, though I would like to see what Torie, or anyone else for that matter, thinks about it.

Well, the 2nd draft forced parties to hold elections every 6 months. I think this is far more flexible.

     To be honest, I had not thought about the ramifications of that change. I just figured that the party chair would just be able to PM all the members & then they could go hold the election (with the results submitted to the necessary authority).

     Anyway, I'm thinking about a change that would prevent a citizen from serving as party chair for consecutive terms, in order to cut down on beaurocracy. It's nice to get some fresh blood in the leadership every now & then.

We should leave that to the parties to decide.

[Хahar 🤔]

My proposed Article III:

     3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer the election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and all no candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to add or withdraw his/her name from the ballot.
Adding a bit of an incentive for the chair to do his job.

[Хahar 🤔]

A few more changes:

     I decided to change some language to make it more internally consistent, as well as to be more specific.

     I guess you could call this the 5th draft :

     Amendment for the Empowerment of Parties

     1. Membership of a party whose membership numbers fewer than five registered voters is hereby declared inviable, and thus null and void. Any member of such a party has one week upon finding by the Secretary of Forum Affairs that said party is no longer viable to attempt to increase the party's membership to five citizens once again, or to re-register. If said citizen re-registers within the time frame, his/her right to vote in any election held within the next ten days shall not be infringed.

Just adding some internal consistency.

     2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours 1 to 3 weeks before the commencement of the relevant general election, a primary election for that party shall be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the membership of said party, by the membership of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

The 5th amendment timetable allows only one day for the general election campaign. This way, there is time for GE campaigning, a runoff (if needed), and flexibility for the party chair in opening the election.

     3. If the party chair gives advance warning that s/he will be unable to administer said primary election, s/he shall empower any citizen in good standing with the party to administer said primary election. If the party chair or other designated elections administrator fails to properly administer the election, through failure to open or close the booth in a timely fashion, the primary shall be declared null and void, and no candidates of that party for the relevant general election shall appear on the general election ballot, regardless of any attempt by a candidate to add his/her name from the ballot.
     I am considering removing the requirement that the polls for a primary remain open for 72 hours. After all, the point of the proposed amendment is to empower the parties. As such, it should only regulate their behavior in ways that would help see it implemented.

     I doubt that the parties would deviate too far from the customary 72 hours. If they do, the members of the party could protest, or refuse to support the nominee. To protect the rights of the people, though, if this part were stricken, I would support a replacement part that would provide that the party must give the times that the primary begins & ends ahead of time.

     What does everyone think?

I think the 72 hours rule is fine. It's the only voting time in use for any sort of election, and it provides a safeguard.
Would this really need an amendment?

[Хahar 🤔]

     2. If two or more members of a given party declare candidacy in the same regularly- scheduled general election, then 96 hours 1 to 3 weeks before the commencement of the relevant general election, a primary election for that party shall be held. The polls shall remain open for 72 hours, and be administered by the party chair, who shall be elected from among the membership of said party, by the membership of said party, to terms of no more than six months in duration. Any citizen in good standing with the party may vote in said primary election. There shall be as many primary elections as there are parties with multiple candidates seeking office in the relevant general election.

The 5th amendment timetable allows only one day for the general election campaign. This way, there is time for GE campaigning, a runoff (if needed), and flexibility for the party chair in opening the election.

     I agree with this to some extent. The reason that I set the timetable that I did was because the deadline for declaring as a candidate for Senator or President is one week before the election. That would have to be changed for such an early primary to work, since otherwise, one could file after his/her party's primary & not have to deal with it.

Well then, we can make one week the deadline for Independents, and let the parties create their own deadline (within the 1-3 week timetable).

Calling Torie. Where are you, Torie?

[Хahar 🤔]

Why not just make the deadline identical to the start time of the primaries?

[Хahar 🤔]

Is this intended to apply to all elections, or just federal elections?

All.

I would think that for non viable parties, the result would be that it members automatically become independents. Any legislation that strips the franchise entirely is doomed to fail.

Well, it does make parties, or at least their chairs, important.

I don't see why the time limits to declare a candidacy need to be changed, except that it would be limited to independents and those who have won their party's nomination.

But this'd be a time limit for the primary election.

I don't see how this will accomplish much, but I guess it does force folks to choose between a party and hoping the get the nomination, or becoming an independent.

Another way it increases the role of parties.

It might cause a spike up in the independents.  I assume the idea is that if you are a member of a party, and lose the nomination, you are ineligible to be put on the ballot. But then one could declare as a write in no?

Part of the fun.

I assume this needs to be a Constitutional amendment, but I have not looked into that.

After I understand what you want, after thinking all of this through, I will suggest alternative language.

Best, Torie

Wonderful.

[Хahar 🤔]

Pit (and Xahar), I just wanted you to know that I am in the processing of printing out portions of Atlasian law, including the Constitution, and all  procedural statutes and regulations, which I will read in short order to ascertain how this proposed legislation fits into the mix. Thank you.

Well, I was going to take a look, but I guess I won't now.