SENATE BILL: Trial, Not Turnout Amendment (Sent to the Regions) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 09:29:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Trial, Not Turnout Amendment (Sent to the Regions) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Trial, Not Turnout Amendment (Sent to the Regions)  (Read 6479 times)
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« on: December 12, 2012, 03:30:11 PM »

I'll let Oakvale address the specifics of how to set up the amendment (we may have a bit of a debacle with the Impeachment Clarification Amendment), but I do have a few concerns.

For one, this is a huge power we'd be giving ourselves. I agree that the current system is flawed, but to pretend that senators are not also political beings with agendas is a bit problematic.

If I may suggest, could we establish some sort of "Impeachment Convention" that includes the senators and the regional executives? I feel like the senate is a bit too small to deal with something of this nature completely on its own. I think it would make impeachment a little too easy.

If not, I'll still probably support the amendment. But I think giving the regions more of a say certainly can't hurt.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2012, 04:11:44 PM »

My justification was that this senate would likely impeach you if articles of impeachment were ever introduced, whereas your chances might be a bit better if the regional executives were involved. If you'd like to concentrate the impeachment power in just ten politicians and trust their judgement, I'll withdraw my suggestion altogether.

My thinking was that including the regional executives would show that we're trying to be more represenatative of The People, as this amendment would completely remove their voice from the impeachment process otherwise. Moreover, it's not like the regions are detached from events that happen at the federal level. They're just as much a part of Atlasia.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2012, 04:17:12 PM »

All right, what's your argument?
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2012, 06:59:22 PM »

I respect that, but I'm still curious to hear what's so bad about the governors idea. I'm honestly open to scrapping the suggestion if I can be convinced of its shortfalls.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2012, 03:45:37 PM »

Abstain
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2012, 10:52:17 PM »

In light of Marokai's comments, I just want to make it clear that my abstention is not coming out of a desire to wait for Oakvale's return so he can defend the bill. I do share a lot of Marokai's concerns. That said, I also see some shortfalls in the current system. Thus, I've abstained. If the amendment has to go to The People, I am sure they will render an appropriate decision. If it does not make it to The People, I'm okay with that too.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2012, 11:20:07 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could support this compromise, but other than that, I still agree that we shouldn't give ourselves more power than is due.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2012, 12:18:15 AM »

Either of the suggestions from Nix and Marokai would have my support.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2012, 06:18:08 PM »

Aye
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2013, 12:07:48 PM »

I like the current system where we can expel senators on our own.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2013, 12:24:05 PM »
« Edited: January 11, 2013, 12:29:00 PM by HagridOfTheDeep »

Aye

(After some long thought.)

We'll need to set a high signature requirement for those petitions, though.

Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2013, 12:30:58 PM »

Nay

(Changing my vote.)

I really missed something fundamental. No conservative would survive an up-down vote for a single senate seat in Atlasia. The same would probably be true for Labor.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,763
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2013, 03:11:11 PM »

Aye
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.