Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[tmthforu94]

I urge all senators to oppose the massive intrusion of freedom in the bill Sen. Fritz's has just proposed.  Atlasia has a long history of party switching and waiting 60 days in between party switching is absurd

For a very rare time in my life, I completely agree with DWTL. That bill is a threat to democracy by deleting the freedom to be a member of the political party we want.

I agree with DWTL and Senator Maxque. While it isn't great to be constantly switching parties, I don't see any good reason why it should be outlawed.

[tmthforu94]

The legislation regarding motorcycles is awfully draconian.

How so? Actually, the punishments for violating Section A are slightly lower than America's, I believe.

[tmthforu94]

How about this?

Party Empowerment Act

Organized political parties shall have the power to regulate their membership.

I'd be more than happy to modify it to that.

[tmthforu94]

Too vague. The word "regulate" needs to be more thoroughly defined.

Why? The point is that the government has almost no role in party regulation. All this legislation can do is formalize avenues that parties may choose to use. For example, it has never been clear what power parties have to remove members. They can do it, but does the SoFA have to do anything? And can the person sign back up to the party?

The bill gives parties discretion and simply provides directive to the SoFA, which is exactly what it should do.

Question, do American political parties have the power to remove members?

Question: Do American parties only have a couple dozen members, in which over half of it's members are extremely active in the government, and where a high % of members actually hold some sort of office?

[tmthforu94]

Please do not withdraw it. I'd like to amend it to eliminate a minimum age entirely.

For gods sake, why?

Why not? It's a victimless crime.

Ah no its not. I consider the fools that submit themselves to being photographed in such a way are victims. The idiot who looks at it is also the victim. Just because people want to do something doesn't mean we should let them if its "victimless". I seem to remember a bill not two long ago where the same arguement I made here was being made by my opponents on this.

And why should a 12 year old boy not be allowed to look at nude women (or men) if he wants to? He or his parents should be making these decisions, not the state.

I would support a bill that would just keep them from buying it. If their parents think they can have it, they can buy it for them. I'm not sure if you should make looking at it "illegal" though.

[tmthforu94]

I actually favor Senator Hashemite's bill, although I don't think "jerK" is that bad, and I think this should be included for anyone posting on the Senate floor, not just the Senators.

[tmthforu94]

I wouldn't support Rowan's current bill, as there needs to be something in there for protection of mothers life. Once that is added, and possibly incest, maybe rape, this bill will have my support.

[tmthforu94]

The Strategic Registration Amendment

1. Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 is hereby amended to read: "Persons may only change their State of registration once every 180 days."

I strongly support this legislation.

     Yes, I urge all Senators to vote in favor of this amendment. Perhaps an exception should be included for moves in real life.

Is that really enforceable though? Unless you mean by matching IP addresses to locations.

    Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

The moderators would love that amendment....

[tmthforu94]

Vice-Presidential Election Amendment

The election to the office of Vice-President shall be a distinct and seperate election from that of the President, although the elections for both offices will occur simultaneously.

If this makes sense, on regional levels (Governor/Lt. Governor) I think the system should be with the Governor and Lt. Governor on the same ticket. On the national level, I'm pretty torn on this bill. I really like this idea, but what would it do? I'll have to see both arguements before deciding.

[tmthforu94]

Daylight Savings Time Abolition Act

1. The Republic of Atlasia shall no longer recognize Daylight Savings Time.
2. Clocks will not be set back or forward for any reason.

This could make life for the SoFA and all voters very confusing.

Though I hate Daylight Savings time to the fullest extent, this bill would massively throw me off. And if we ever have an SoFA that's on Daylight Savings time, it will throw him/her off too.

[tmthforu94]

I also don't see any need for this bill. Banning unity tickets is an unnecessary restriction on political discourse, organizing and activity.

Ditto.
Since Bgwah apparently didn't pay enough attention to notice that I introduced a strikingly similar bill on behalf of Xahar on the 15th, I'll go ahead and delete mine.

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

[tmthforu94]

Me love you long time, tmth.

Should I be pleased, or scared?

[tmthforu94]

The only problem is that there needs to be a method for a region to leave the partnership if it changes its mind.

Yes, I read that in the previous thread's discussion after posting this. I'm extremely open to any amendment adding that.

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?

Recently, Regional Senate elections have gotten rather boring, with only one "close" result in February, which was the Northeast. This could possibly bring back some spice to Regional Senate seats, without taking them away. I guess you could call this an alternative to abolishing regional seats, a much better alternative that will actually give even more power to the regions, while making the elections even more exciting.

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

Interesting, but might I ask why?

Recently, Regional Senate elections have gotten rather boring, with only one "close" result in February, which was the Northeast. This could possibly bring back some spice to Regional Senate seats, without taking them away.

Interesting, but I don't have a lot of hope that many people in the regions would be incredibly excited about entering a 'partnership,' It would be nice to 'diversify' the regions however, considering the somewhat lagging elections. I do hope this passes however, simply to switch around things in the game.

What did you have in mind when saying "'diversify' the regions"? Because honestly, I'm desperate right now, and I know others are, for a boost in Atlasia, and anyone's imput would be greatly appreciated.

[tmthforu94]

Would the Senate mind repealing this?

Just for clarification, I introduced the repeal of the Privacy Protection Act on behalf of a constituent. I personally voted against the repeal. Ironically, I said...

Nay
This would be terrible, and create much more uneeded drama on Atlasia. You all will regret your "Aye" vote in a few weeks...

Change weeks to months, and "you all" to "many of you", and I nailed it.

[tmthforu94]

Since Rowan once complained on seniority rules:

Make Rowan Happy Act

1. The following Act shall establish factors considered in calculating seniority for all incoming Senators. The Act shall not affect already established seniority of an incumbent Senators moment of passing.
2. For Senators, who are taking an office the same day, regardless on an exact time of swearing-in, following factors shall be used in determining a seniority:
a. Former Senators (length of time served in previous non-consecutive terms)
b. Former Presidents (in order of their terms)
c. Former Vice Presidents (
- In order of the office's place in presidential line of succession
- In order of their terms
e. Former Governors
- In order of Region's population
- In order of their terms
f. Former Lieutenant Governors
- In order of Region's population
- In order of their terms
g. By Region's population
h. By alfabethical order of a registered username
3. Section 3 is not required, but cool


(Probably needs multiple grammar/speeling corrections anyway)

I feel H. is extremely unfair. We weren't told when we signed up that the first letter of our username would have an effect on the game.

[tmthforu94]

Ask The Power Act

1. The President is required to create an official, permanent questioning thread
2. Game Moderator is required to stick this topic
3. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
4. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days

We could also just sticky the President's official thread, as we already have answered several questions there. At the rate we're going, the entire first page of the Election Board will be stickied boards before we know it!

Also, if you do stick with this, I'd strongly recommend adding a clause at the end excusing the three day timeline if the cabinet-member has posted a LOA.

[tmthforu94]

How about this?

Ask The Power Act

1. Game Moderator shall be required to stick current official White House thread
2. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
3. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days, unless they posted leave of absence before

GM's don't have moderator rights. Do you mean the Moderator General?

Why can only Senator's and Regional Governor's submit questions? Why can't anyone?

Also, the GM is a cabinet position, so you wouldn't need to put it separately in Section 3.

[tmthforu94]

How about this?

Ask The Power Act

1. Game Moderator shall be required to stick current official White House thread
2. Any Senator or Regional Governor shall be allowed to submitt an official question here for President, Vice President, Game Moderator or any cabinet members, regarding Government business
3. President, Vice President, Game Moderator or Cabinet member, to whom question was addressed, shall be required to provide an official answer within three days, unless they posted leave of absence before

GM's don't have moderator rights. Do you mean the Moderator General?

Why can only Senator's and Regional Governor's submit questions? Why can't anyone?

Also, the GM is a cabinet position, so you wouldn't need to put it separately in Section 3.

1. Yes, that's my bad.

2. Practicality. I figured it's better to limit it now to key officials, because otherwise you'd have to answer all over and all over again.

3. I'll fix it.

A nice start.

My concern is how effective and useful this will be, tbh. I have a real concern that Governor's and Senator's will actually take the time to ask questions.

[tmthforu94]

Does it have to be a Constitutional Amendment? That would take more time, I would think. A simple law was implemented to require people to register in the "New Register Thread", and I don't see why we shouldn't do the same thing for the others.

[tmthforu94]

The elections times are currently set by the Constitution and thus require an amendment to be altered.

I know that, I'm referring to the amendments requiring that you post in certain threads. I bill has already passed requiring you have to register in "New Register Thread", so that one's moot.

[tmthforu94]

Why not just ask a Senator?

Ah, you misunderstand. I don't have any at the moment to introduce, and I have always been able to find a helping Senator in the past to do so.

I just think it would be interesting to the game to let the Cabinet almost transform into a Cabinet out of a Parliamentary system.

This is just my opinion, no problem if it can't be done.

I actually think this is a very good idea, Barnes.

 During my administration, there were several instances where myself or another cabinetmember wanted to introduce something, but we had to get a Senator to do it for us. The bill is going to be introduced regardless, so I don't see any problem with "cutting out the middleman".

[tmthforu94]

...and Marokai just proved that he should have been in the Senate even earlier.