Atlas Forum

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: ?????????? on January 24, 2005, 01:26:49 pm



Title: The Two Office bill
Post by: ?????????? on January 24, 2005, 01:26:49 pm
1. No person in Atlasia may run for two offices at the same time.

2. Any person who runs for office may not hold an office while running for another position.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 24, 2005, 01:29:52 pm
You would have to make that a constitutional amendment, since it flies flat in the face of the Constitution. "The right to run for office shall not be abridged ... etc etc (point of the clause in question being that the only reason you can prevent someone from running is he doesn't have enough posts, or is not a registered voter)
Which is a good thing, because that way I can vote against it. :)


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 24, 2005, 01:33:48 pm
States, to be honest, I might not support your bid, but I certainly support you right to have two bids at once.  The people voting can make the decision whether they trust it or not.

Why have you switched to a red avatar?


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Peter on January 24, 2005, 01:38:42 pm
You would have to make that a constitutional amendment, since it flies flat in the face of the Constitution. "The right to run for office shall not be abridged ... etc etc (point of the clause in question being that the only reason you can prevent someone from running is he doesn't have enough posts, or is not a registered voter)
Which is a good thing, because that way I can vote against it. :)

Yeah, whatever that is you just said isn't in the Constitution.

You are referring to "Amendment" (I use that term loosely) II, Section 1, which states:

"No one shall exclude any person from an election or position on the basis of their political affiliation, whether it be in a federal or regional election. No one shall be excluded from any position due to their nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual affiliation, or age."

Hilariously there is no technical requirement to be a registered voter if you want to be President, though there is for Senator. There are post limits on both posts.

Also the recent amendment might just give the Senate authority over this issue:

"The Senate shall have power through appropriate legislation to determine rules for the conduct, proceedings and format of elections to the Presidency and the Senate unless otherwise specified in this Constitution."

That was an unintended consequence to be sure, but it seems to just about squeeze in.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: 2,868,691 on January 24, 2005, 05:06:44 pm
I don't like this bill at all...I ran for the presidency while a senator and it didn't hurt me.  I still voted in the senate and all.  It wasn't a big deal.  And while running for 2 offices at once is kinda cheap, I don't really think it should be necessarily illegal.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Sam Spade on January 24, 2005, 05:08:29 pm
I see no reason for this bill myself.  It should more of established procedure and protocol more than anything, fwiw.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: DanielX on January 25, 2005, 03:39:35 pm
States, to be honest, I might not support your bid, but I certainly support you right to have two bids at once.  The people voting can make the decision whether they trust it or not.

Why have you switched to a red avatar?

I think States Rights is now a Dixiecrat.

BTW, I oppose this bill, and urge my senators (Bono and Siege) to vote against it.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: MAS117 on January 25, 2005, 07:42:19 pm
I agree with 1 but not 2.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Gabu on January 25, 2005, 10:42:05 pm
Personally, I see nothing wrong with either action, if a person really wants to.  The public is likely not to like it, especially the first action, but I don't see why we need to make it illegal.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 26, 2005, 11:19:22 am
You would have to make that a constitutional amendment, since it flies flat in the face of the Constitution. "The right to run for office shall not be abridged ... etc etc (point of the clause in question being that the only reason you can prevent someone from running is he doesn't have enough posts, or is not a registered voter)
Which is a good thing, because that way I can vote against it. :)

Yeah, whatever that is you just said isn't in the Constitution.

You are referring to "Amendment" (I use that term loosely) II, Section 1, which states:

"No one shall exclude any person from an election or position on the basis of their political affiliation, whether it be in a federal or regional election. No one shall be excluded from any position due to their nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual affiliation, or age."
Damn it. :)
That bit about 18 posts and being an active poster and the definition of what an active poster is, where is that?
I'd been thinking of that, but judging by your response I guess that only refers to the right to vote.
(Of course, in German, Wahlrecht refers to both...which may be the cause of my error.)


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Defarge on January 26, 2005, 04:03:33 pm
I would not support such a bill.  This is a tradition, not a law, and should remain as such. 


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Gabu on February 08, 2005, 03:28:31 am
I hereby open debate on this bill.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Gabu on February 09, 2005, 01:19:21 am
Bump.  If nothing gets debated here by tomorrow, I'm calling this to a vote.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: WMS on February 09, 2005, 10:34:52 am
This bill is unnecessary and I will be voting against it.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Gabu on February 09, 2005, 01:32:24 pm
This bill is unnecessary and I will be voting against it.

I basically have nothing to add to this statement.  This is something that, while frowned upon, is not something that really hurts anything, so there's no reason to make it illegal.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Gabu on February 09, 2005, 06:14:55 pm
Okay, it's been past twenty-four hours, so voting is hereby now open.

All senators in favor of this bill, vote "yea"; all senators against, vote "nay".

----

Nay.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 09, 2005, 06:32:53 pm
Nay


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: ?????????? on February 09, 2005, 08:34:53 pm
yea


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: WMS on February 10, 2005, 10:07:35 am
Nay.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Nym90 on February 10, 2005, 03:24:36 pm
Nay


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Siege40 on February 10, 2005, 04:45:58 pm
NAY


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Bono on February 11, 2005, 04:09:49 pm
nay


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Gabu on February 11, 2005, 04:10:43 pm
With six votes against to one in favor, I hereby declare this bill to have failed.


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: The Duke on February 11, 2005, 06:31:06 pm
Nay


Title: Re: The Two Office bill
Post by: Defarge on February 11, 2005, 11:36:04 pm
nay