SENATE RESOLUTION: The Recall of Senators Amendment (Passed)

[Former President tack50]

Thank you.

It came to my attention reciently on Discord that there was interest on reviving the Recall of Senators Ammendment, which failed last session in the House.

As such I've decided to re-introduce it. This is the original version as it stood when sent to the house, but I think this will probably need some ammendments in order to ensure passage by both houses of Congress (including some sort of minimum turnout and/or a supermajority requirement)

I genuinely think this is a good ammendment. This will allow for an alternative to expulsion when the Senate isn't willing to pursue expulsion for some reason; and I do not think we should hold Senators to a different standard than other elected officials. If a Senator has failed his constituents, the people of the region should be allowed to recall said Senator.

[Former President tack50]

"Senators shall be subject to recall in each Region, according to the provisions that at least a quarter of registered voters in the respective Region must sign a petition to initiate a recall, an initiated recall vote must require the turnout of at least half of registered voters in the respective Region; and 3/5 of all votes, excluding abstentions, must be cast in favor of the recall; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein"

This amendment, to set the standards for recall, was agreed to on Discord. i would hope that a Senator would sponsor this amendment.

Agreed to by who? Random people in chat? Influential House members who voted nay last time?

Generally House members (but also random people in chat). Revising the chat I can certainly say Louisville Thunder and Jimmy claimed to support an ammended version, both of whom voted to table the ammendment in the House last time.

[Former President tack50]

"Senators shall be subject to recall in each Region, according to the provisions that at least a quarter of registered voters in the respective Region must sign a petition to initiate a recall, an initiated recall vote must require the turnout of at least half of registered voters in the respective Region; and 3/5 of all votes, excluding abstentions, must be cast in favor of the recall; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein"

This amendment, to set the standards for recall, was agreed to on Discord. i would hope that a Senator would sponsor this amendment.

Agreed to by who? Random people in chat? Influential House members who voted nay last time?

Generally House members (but also random people in chat). Revising the chat I can certainly say Louisville Thunder and Jimmy claimed to support an ammended version, both of whom voted to table the ammendment in the House last time.

For full disclosure, I did not approve of allowing recalls without activity limits to prevent active senators from being recalled. Jimmy only supported the minimum turnout/supermajority requirments while I support both.

Fair enough. I imagine that means you would support the ammendment ASV proposed? (minimum 50% turnout and minimum 60% yes)

[Former President tack50]

I mean,
It appears I have to repeat myself but you cannot imagine how easily this kind of clause can be hijacked. "Hell is paved with good intentions".

I invaded once a region, transformed it from the most socon one to a labor stronghold by flipping the IRL DINOs by running on a socially moderate platform and by moving voters en masse to this.

If I were playing this game with that clause, Griffin and I would have easily targeted senators by moving voters en masse and then started a recall.

And I don't understand the reasoning behind this, inactive senators get expulsed by the senate. What the point of passing that?

Well, there are some safeguards to try and prevent abuse in the ammendment.

As for the point of this, it's basically to prevent an scenario where the Senate protects a bad/inactive senator on purpose, or someonw who always just barely escapes the rules. It's not hard to imagine say, a senator who mostly trolls and rarely posts, yet it's protected for partisan reasons.

In that scenario the people of the region would be able to recall said senator.

[Former President tack50]

Also, Jimmy's ammendment sponsored by ON Progressive is friendly.

I'm not a huge fan of it, but I recognize it's the only way this will pass the house.

[Former President tack50]

I mean,
It appears I have to repeat myself but you cannot imagine how easily this kind of clause can be hijacked. "Hell is paved with good intentions".

I invaded once a region, transformed it from the most socon one to a labor stronghold by flipping the IRL DINOs by running on a socially moderate platform and by moving voters en masse to this.

If I were playing this game with that clause, Griffin and I would have easily targeted senators by moving voters en masse and then started a recall.

And I don't understand the reasoning behind this, inactive senators get expulsed by the senate. What the point of passing that?

Well, there are some safeguards to try and prevent abuse in the ammendment.

As for the point of this, it's basically to prevent an scenario where the Senate protects a bad/inactive senator on purpose, or someonw who always just barely escapes the rules. It's not hard to imagine say, a senator who mostly trolls and rarely posts, yet it's protected for partisan reasons.

In that scenario the people of the region would be able to recall said senator.

Well,
When was the last time a "senator who mostly trolls and rarely posts" was protected for partisan reasons?

I'll admit it's an unlikely possibility but a possibility nontheless.

Still I also don't get the abuse argument considering that regional recalls have never been abused either. And the thresholds for recalling a legislator or a governor are lower than this proposed ammendment. Should we really hold Senators to a higher standard?

[Former President tack50]

I would also point out that Rimjob took advantage of a pro-regional reform pushed by Maroduke, which regionalized the manner of administering regional amendment ratification, thus allowing them to opt for regional legislative approval.

There will also be hostile elements, seeking to cheat the system.

Strategic Registration has at various points crippled this game, typically via the Pacific by pulling out dissident residents to supply the numbers to go after another region. Most every example of such, has almost always involved pulling people from the West and this is one of many factors as to why the Pacific and subsequently Fremont has always struggled, since they are frequently the ones being strip mined.

If such were to be attempted again, on the scale Windjammer describes, I would aggressively push for harsh criminal penalties for the ring leaders and move restrictions.

Is it a crime to engage in strategic registration? I guess that could be an ammendment to the criminal code.

Also, it's worth noting that I think the fear of strategic registration is overblown. First, there is a 6 month cooldown on any region changes, which should work to discourage any strategic registration attempts.

Second, strategic registration is a double edged sword. Let's say Labor were to engage in strategic registration in Lincoln (since that was the closest region last election). That would mean moving voters from the South (probably losing seats in the CoD) or Fremont (risking their majorities there). Same goes for the Feds or any other party.

The risks of strategic registration are probably large enough for it not to be done.

[Former President tack50]

Regarding point 1, I don't see how we would need to update the explanation section to reflect the most reciently passed ammendment? (which I think is the activity standards one?)

As for point 2, I personally think the bill is fine as is, but of course I also want this to pass the House, so I welcome any further inputs.

[Former President tack50]

With these changes, I can only recommend that the Amendment be soundly rejected, as it compromises the ability of the regions to regulate their own elections and potentially makes senators answerable to recall by an electorate different from that which put them in office (in the event a region opted to conduct senatorial elections in the regional legislature).

How does it affect the ability of regions to regulate their own elections?

[Former President tack50]

Well, initially this was ammended to create a high threshold, now we want to ammend it to give the regions the power to decide the requirements? These are not 2 incompatible requirements, but I would definitely encourage a bit more of a guideline. Should the federal government set a minimum requirement and then regions can put it even higher? Or should we leave it completely to the regions?

As for senators being elected by state legislatures, I don't think it's a bad idea that the people can recall the senator anyways, it adds a nice touch of direct democracy. It's up to the legislature to appoint someone that is suitable for the region.

Not to mention that no region currently elects their senators through the legislature. In fact, has this ever happened at any point?

[Former President tack50]

As currently worded, I think the bill is closest right now to option 2.

Maybe we could go with a compromise between 1 and 2? Where the federal government sets a minimum standard for Senate recalls and regions are allowed to make the recall requirements even harder?

Of course we would then need to decide which is the minimum federal level we want.

[Former President tack50]

I will campaign against ratification if the Senate votes to pass the bill as written. The original version of this amendment (which I wrote) gave the regions the option of allowing senatorial recall elections in their Constitutions and left the methods for conducting such elections to the regions themselves. The current text, by contrast, would diminish regional autonomy by requiring the regions to conduct senatorial recall elections under certain circumstances and enumerating exactly how and when those elections are to take place. We worked very hard at the ConCon to avoid this kind of federal overreach, and it would be terribly ironic if the Senate—supposedly the house of the regions—were to begin the march of rolling back that progress.

Actually, the pro-regional autonomy argument is a very strong one and one I agree with. However, others have said that recalls being allowed with their requirements established by the regions can be dangerous and easily abused.

To quote Yankee from previously:

I think we have a real problem here and it requires something of a judgement call. This is where we are at in my opinion:

1. We can go with complete regional discretion on how to structure their recalls, as that is in line with the constitutions delegation of administration of Senate elections and manner in which such is done. But this opens the risk to massive exploitation by Windjammer and his ilk.

2. We can go the opposite direction and dictate the exact manner of said recall, which erodes regional authority to determine their own procedures for elections while at the same time giving them the ability to recall their Senators.

3. We can do nothing and let the status quo remain.

According to your post, the current law seems to be option 1 (where the regions determine the requirements to recall a sitting Senator). In that case, this ammendment would be quite redundant other than actually specifying the requirements.

I thought recalls were completely illegal as of now?

If they are legal, considering that Senate recalls have never happened, I would probably either ammend the bill heavily so it's just a clarification ammendment or outright move to table and keep the status quo.

However, that might be dangerous precisely because region handled recalls can be abused, although they haven't been abused thus far. So I'd be tempted to keep the status quo, but it would open the door to abuse later.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly, I agree that we should try to give more power to the regions wherever possible, and that includes Senate elections. I fully agree with the remarks made above.

The only reason why I am worried about the potential for abuse is because we have actually had a direct threat warning about that possibility, from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a very experienced player and politician no less. To quote directly:

I mean,
It appears I have to repeat myself but you cannot imagine how easily this kind of clause can be hijacked. "Hell is paved with good intentions".

I invaded once a region, transformed it from the most socon one to a labor stronghold by flipping the IRL DINOs by running on a socially moderate platform and by moving voters en masse to this.

If I were playing this game with that clause, Griffin and I would have easily targeted senators by moving voters en masse and then started a recall.

And I don't understand the reasoning behind this, inactive senators get expulsed by the senate. What the point of passing that?

That was with the unammended more pro-region version:

Section I: Title
1. This Resolution shall be titled, "The Recall of Senators Amendment"

Section 2: Changes to the Constitution
Article III, Section II, Clause 1 is amended as follows.

1. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall consist of two Senators from each Region, elected for a term of four months in the manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. Senators shall be subject to recall according to such provisions as may be established in the constitutions of their respective Regions; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein.

I imagine this wording would be better in your opinion? Originally the bill left the conditions for recall to the Regions themselves.

On the other hand, it's worth noting that without the extended barriers, the ammendment might not pass the House anyways, just like it happened last time. I actually personally prefer the original wording (and I think I mentioned that earlier), but the ammendment was apparently required to make House passage easier.

If the pro-region version is rejected by the House, and the more centralized version is rejected by the people, then I think there is no way for this amemndment to pass.

[Former President tack50]

Well we do need a amendment to sort this in some way, because at current it is unclear whether the regions hold the power of recall or not.

Not really. We don't need to add a line to the Constitution every time someone is wrong.

Besides, giving the Courts something to do isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If we want to do it this way, then can someone soon launch a recall petition for a sitting senator, so we can get this legal question to the Supreme Court already.

Uh, I'd rather not have a recall against any of my fellow colleagues or against myself; as we are all active and capable legislators (though of course if the people want that they can still collect signatures for a petition).

This is something that should happen whenever it is appropiate. A good example could have been, say, Lechasseur's expulsion (which was very much non-controversial and took quite a while to be effective).

As for the bill itself, I hope someone from the House will come here and tell their opinion, as I'd rather not pass it here only to fail later in the other chamber. Given the current situation, I would propose an ammendment to restore the original wording. If that version has enough support, I would move for a final vote. If it seems passage in the House will be impossible, or other Senators have concerns about the original wording, then I would motion to table the resolution.

Overall I think the most likely scenario is tabling this but others are not unthinkable or particularly unlikely.

[Former President tack50]

Seriously can a Senator please sponsor an amendment to revert this Amendment back to its originally introduced wording.

Senate Resolution

To allow for recall of Senators by the Regions they represent.

Be it resolved by two-thirds of each chamber that the Constitution be amended, as follows, upon ratification by the regions.

Section I: Title
1. This Resolution shall be titled, "The Recall of Senators Amendment"

Section 2: Changes to the Constitution
Article III, Section II, Clause 1 is amended as follows.

1. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia shall consist of two Senators from each Region, elected for a term of four months in the manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. Senators shall be subject to recall according to such provisions as may be established in the constitutions of their respective Regions; but no Region shall make or enforce any Act or other Rule prescribing regular elections for the Senate, except in accordance with the provisions established herein.

I will sponsor this

I guess if it passes it can be the House who can deal with the issue

[Former President tack50]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

To be honest, I don't know.

But since all 3 regional governments are against the bill as ammended; the only option would be the unammended version that already failed to pass the House. If the House is still against it, I guess they can be the ones to vote this ammendment down (again).

Another option could be tabling this. I'm almost tempted to object to my own ammendment just so we get a vote (not doing that yet though).

[Former President tack50]

We are literally back to square 1. This is the same text to what failed in the House.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=312803.msg6653945#msg6653945

What makes the outcome different this time?

It only failed in the House last time because of Windjammer's fear-mongering going unanswered. Plus, it's a new congress, and this amendment has far more support and interest than last time.

Why are we tuning out windjammer considering his history of doing (purely from an elections standpoint) shrewd political moves? Because muh Labor and Labor is bad?

Actually, the problem here is that we have two Laborites making different arguments, and we are basically going to have to chose between which one to listen to. Truman or Windjammer.

While game reform should be one of the least partisan kinds of bills, since both Truman and Windjammer are Laborites, does the other side of the aisle have an opinion on the issue?

[Former President tack50]

This ammendment has nothing to do with activity. It has to do with giving the people a chance to recall their elected officials. As I've said before we should not get a different set of rules for our federal officeholders; or at least not for the Senators.

Even regarding the point about strategic registratgion, remember that recalls are not automatic; a recall can be defeated. And I imagine recalling a sitting senator without a valid reason would be soundly defeated, strategic registration or not; not to mention the possibility of the recalled senator running again in the special election. Not to mention the risks that come with strategic registration.

It's also a good chance to clarify whether or not senators can be recalled (as the question is unclear).

It's quite interesting how the people affected by this ammendment: the governors of the regions; and the Senate; seem to be in favour while the opposition comes from places unaffected by this ammendment.

[Former President tack50]

I fully oppose locking down the recall electorate to those who had the right to vote on the original election for the exact same reasons as jk2020.

I would also add the issue that having to control several electorates for recalls would be very hard for the Registrar General and Secretary of Elections and we should not make their lives harder (especially since they are the same person currently, but even if split it's not a good idea)

[Former President tack50]

I would also add the issue that having to control several electorates for recalls would be very hard for the Registrar General and Secretary of Elections and we should not make their lives harder (especially since they are the same person currently, but even if split it's not a good idea)

I'm not sure I follow this line of argument. It would be up to the regions to enforce their own rules regarding Senatorial recalls, so the RG/SoFE would play no part in seeing this implemented —if one or more regions decided to go this rout.

Actually you are right, as you could just use an outdated census (the one closest to the original election). I still think it would be hard to limit the voter pool to those at the original election though and a dumb idea.

If people want to invade a region to recall someone, that's corrupt, but should be possible. And of course it would be up to the regions to decide.