SENATE BILL: Empowering Regions in Federal Elections Amendment (sent to regions)

[Napoleon]

This addresses my concerns from the last time we debated this. I'm eager to support this amendment.

[Napoleon]

I think this bill will be good for regional activity at the local level. So far, it seems like the regions are removed from the entire process altogether, so I hope the senate and the President considers this.

So you want federal elections to looks like one of the recent IDS regional elections in which only three people did vote (and you weren't one of those three?)

It will be a mess. I mean, we're voting on ratifying one constitutional amendment right now and two regions (cough, Archangel, cough Snowstalker) are yet to open their damn booths.

At current stage I really don't want to handle this to the regional officials. We have Department of Federal Election which is doing a superb work.

Snowstalker opens the booths on time...
 
Having the Presidential election on the ballot will ensure maximum turnout and carry over to downballot elections too.

[Napoleon]

I don't get why regions can't set up their voting threads on Thursday and having all voting start at midnight on Friday.

[Napoleon]

This will not change anything. People who are inactive and are coming here just to vote will still do the same, whether it's regionally-maintained or federally-maintained booth.

This bill is, IMO, a waste of time.

That concern is not meant to be addressed by this amendment. Let's consider what this amendment changes, not external factors that are unrelated.

[Napoleon]

I offer an amendment to remove "and certification of election results" from section 1.

[Napoleon]

It'd be better to have an issue like that contained to one region than all five together.

[Napoleon]

I just don't think it's fair to let one region know ahead of time that they get to decide an election.

If the election is close, people will be fishing for as many votes as they can in any region. I really doubt this one in a million event is concerning enough to outweigh the turnout benefits regional elections will get from sharing a ballot with federal elections, or trumps the region's desire to elect its Senator differently.

[Napoleon]

Kal, weren't you just accusing me of being anti-reform?

This goes back to what I said in the other thread, that calling someone anti-reform is idiotic. Everyone wants reform as long as they get what they mostly want.

[Napoleon]

Ill support the caucus sh**t if you vote to send this to the people, Kal. I'm all about the give and take side of legislating.

[Napoleon]

I know in the Northeast we have multiple people able to open a booth.

Possibly, we could make governors post their booths by noon on Thursday, if not open by then, allow the SoFE to create that region's voting thread.

[Napoleon]

Kal, I already explained two you that I was asked by constituents to not support that particular amendment.  I know you aren't a sponsor of that.

[Napoleon]

The amendment has passed as friendly.

A few thoughts on this bill:

I think it'd be a lot better to keep Presidential elections centralized. Having a single Federal official certify all ballots adds a lot of consistency when it's a nationwide election.

You might want to specify in Section 3 that regions can only allow registered citizens to participate the election.

Also, you might want to put some sort of restriction on the election methods that regions may use for their Senate seats- For example, I don't know how you guys would feel about a region electing two Senators that each counted as half a Senator and thus got half a vote (or, taken to a extreme, a region that elects every citizen to the Senate, each with a fraction of a vote. This would be fun, but a nightmare for the PPT!).

Also, you should probably specify whether the Constitution's prohibitions against dual office holding would still count for the Class A Senate seats.

Or we could just realize that the current way we do voting booths, and have done so for almost 8 years, works fine and there's no reason to change that with the massive headache this amendment will surely cause.

Works fine for who? The regions with three or four votes in their elections?

[Napoleon]

And that doesn't mean Teddy cannot still verify them nationally just because they are all not in one thread.

This bill takes away the certification powers of the SOFA for Presidential and Class A Senate elections, though, so it actually would mean he couldn't verify them.

I understand you have a knack for identifying preposterous possible loophole interpretations in anything, but this is one I'm just not seeing, sorry. I even accepted Napoleon's amendment to remove the region's ability to certify election results, to keep it in the hands of the SoFE.

And you have a knack for supporting reform just for the sake of reform, even if it doesn't make sense.

Ignoring whether or not that's a true statement (sometimes it is ), this proposal is not a reform for the sake of reform thing.  I wont hesitate to vote Nay if that is the case. This amendment not only allows the five very different regions to decide themselves how they elect their federal representation, the Special Report I published right before the last go at this was rejected providences some convincing evidence that we can increase turnout and importance of regional elections. It would definitely help my region to have higher turn out rates, and simplified voting procedures. Give this a chance.

[Napoleon]

That version failed before and for good reason.

[Napoleon]

I've aalready amensed that part out.

[Napoleon]

Scratch that. Don't like this at all.

[Napoleon]

Ugh motion to table


This is an amendment. People have to pass it. Since the Senate isn't concerned with that, we must not be concerned with this amendment.

Lets just move on already.

[Napoleon]

Aye, this just isn't the right time.

[Napoleon]

We can't just table everything that there's not an overwhelming consensus on.

Nay.

Amendments require a 2/3 consensus, so we are just wasting our time.

[Napoleon]

There was no reason to try and make this more complicated than it had to be.

[Napoleon]

First of all, motions to table can not waste time. Final votes take longer. You are either ignorant about this or lying to try and make me look bad.

Second, this is infinitely more complicated. Switch Senate elections around? Extended terms? Half terms? Move regional elections around? What? At this point the harm outweighs the benefit significantly, especially for my region.

Last, I see my mockery of your "too complicated" tantrum last time this was debated went over your head.

Sorry that a motion to table ruined your day. My only hope is it now hurts less when the people reject what I expect to become an abomination.

[Napoleon]

Since I far, far prefer the status quo to bgwah's amendment it makes sense to try anything to keep it far away from becoming law.

[Napoleon]

Your missing the point entirely. I am interested in "empowering regions in federal elections". I'm not interested in sticking election calendars into a blender.

My version is not the most complicated. I am going to explain it here, with clarity, knowing full well you, Marokai Blue, will continue to ignore anything I say.

Under the first proposal, regional Senate elections would have been given to the regions. This guarantees each region having a voting booth at that time and doesn't require rearranging. I said, hey, regions tend to have low turnout guys. We can counteract this by also giving the presidential election to regions, like all 50 US states already do, and not only neutralize turnout decreases for Senate but hopefully bring turn out increases to regional elections.

[Napoleon]

In this case, I don't think I'm even going to vote in favor of this amendment for final passage. I just don't support tabling it since even things that can't be passed can provide good opportunity for discussing what we would like to see out of eventual reform.

I'd agree if this wasn't the second thread for the fourth proposal on an idea whose sponsor would rather sacrifice Ayesa to appease the immobile Nays.

[Napoleon]

At this point I don't think either version will be going anywhere. Too much opposition to either. HENCE, the motion to table.