Congressional Discussion Thread

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is a thread for discussion of matters affecting the House and Senate individually, as well as Congress as a whole.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Congressional Noticeboards:
8th Congress
7th Congress
6th Congress
5th Congress
4th Congress
3rd Congress

[Poirot]

The Hiuse is voting on the Deregistration Waiting Period Act. Ciizens can revoke a deregistration within seven days.

The Senate has also adopted the Deregistration is for Real Act. In this citizens have 49 hours to revoke a deregistration. You have to wait 30 days after deregistration came into effect (so I guess in total 32 days) to register again.

I prefer the 48 hours waiting period.
What happens to the 30 days to register again in the Deregistration is for real act? Will it be added to the 7 days waiting period in another bill? Maybe it should be changed to 21 or 23 days if there is a 7 days waiting period before coming in effect, to have around 30 days total and not 37 days total before re-registering..

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Hiuse is voting on the Deregistration Waiting Period Act. Ciizens can revoke a deregistration within seven days.

The Senate has also adopted the Deregistration is for Real Act. In this citizens have 49 hours to revoke a deregistration. You have to wait 30 days after deregistration came into effect (so I guess in total 32 days) to register again.

I prefer the 48 hours waiting period.
What happens to the 30 days to register again in the Deregistration is for real act? Will it be added to the 7 days waiting period in another bill? Maybe it should be changed to 21 or 23 days if there is a 7 days waiting period before coming in effect, to have around 30 days total and not 37 days total before re-registering..

As I said in the thread, the waiting period is not a limbo. The person is a fully enabled citizen and registrant of Atlasia until the expiration of the waiting period, be it seven days or 48 hours. Therefore it doesn't extend the restriction, since during that wait time they can withdraw their deregistration request, which by definition cuts into the "cannot reregister thing" You don't need to reregister when you can just stay registered and avoid being deregistered to begin with.

Frankly as for melding these two bills together I find it hilarious that the Senate produced bills with two divergent wait times to begin with, considering that chamber originated both pieces of legislation. It is not the first time that the People's House has had to grind through cleaning up the Senate's mess. 

[Poirot]

The House will have to debate a bill version with a period of time to register again. With agreement with Senate the House could have debated the more extensive bill right away.

Therefore it doesn't extend the restriction, since during that wait time they can withdraw their deregistration request, which by definition cuts into the "cannot reregister thing" You don't need to reregister when you can just stay registered and avoid being deregistered to begin with.

Technically it doesn't extend the restriction. In practice it does. Someone makes the decision to deregister and make a post and leave. The person might not stay for 7 days waiting for the RG to finally change the voters list.

For the person it's not 30 days before rejoining since they left (made the post) because you add 7 days before the RG makes the decision official. So it's 37 days after they decided to leave. It extends the time since they decided to deregister because we're asking the RG to wait before recording it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The House will have to debate a bill version with a period of time to register again. With agreement with Senate the House could have debated the more extensive bill right away.

Therefore it doesn't extend the restriction, since during that wait time they can withdraw their deregistration request, which by definition cuts into the "cannot reregister thing" You don't need to reregister when you can just stay registered and avoid being deregistered to begin with.

Technically it doesn't extend the restriction. In practice it does. Someone makes the decision to deregister and make a post and leave. The person might not stay for 7 days waiting for the RG to finally change the voters list.

For the person it's not 30 days before rejoining since they left (made the post) because you add 7 days before the RG makes the decision official. So it's 37 days after they decided to leave. It extends the time since they decided to deregister because we're asking the RG to wait before recording it.

Why is that any different from someone not returning on the other end of the restriction? Yes they may not return during the remainder of the 7 days, but they can under the law (assuming it is passed). Just like after the thirty days, the law says they can return, but they might not return until 35 days or forty days, or six months, or two years.

The restriction is the restriction, it is 30 days. Them not returning during the seven days, in which they can withdraw does not extend the restriction, anymore then them not returning for x number of days after the restriction expires would.

Of course as I said before, this is a theoretical discussion as no such 30 day restriction is presently in law and there is no guarantee that it will be. I presently lean no on it for a variety of reasons.

[Poirot]

The Senate passed a number of days before re-registration. Deregistration issues should be discussed in one bill to make it a coherent package bill to deal with an issue. It seesm logic to have a "cooling off" period to reverse a decision if you can't register again for weeks. If we don't have to wait to register again the waiting period for deregistration is almost about nothing. It gives someone a chance to keep an office and maybe vote if the election is withing a week but if you deregistered it was not that important for you anyway and you don't need 7 days for that, 2 days waiting period is enough. If we can register again whenever we want, there are little consequences to deregistering, there is no meaninful utility to have a law on waiting period for deregistration.

Not adding a waiting period for deregistration keeps things simple for counting days, you just check the post in the registration thread to see when someone deregistered. You don't have to add an arbitrary number of days decided by Nyman to make it official, and then add a number of days before you can return.

Let people be free to go when they decide. If someone decides to take a break it's effective when they decide. If ithe law says 30 days before coming back, someone decided to take a month break starting November 20, they can return December 21. A waiting period for deregistration extends the 30 day break because you are adding artificially a number of days before deregistration is officia. You are makin longer the period before someone can return (I'm not talking of people you change their mind every day and can reverse their decision the next day). It also makes keeping track less easy since the deregistration date in the registration thread is not the official date of deregistration.

My viewpoint is based on not making wait too long players before they can come back after deregistering and assumed there is going to be a period of wait before coming back.       

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Senate passed a number of days before re-registration. Deregistration issues should be discussed in one bill to make it a coherent package bill to deal with an issue. It seesm logic to have a "cooling off" period to reverse a decision if you can't register again for weeks. If we don't have to wait to register again the waiting period for deregistration is almost about nothing. It gives someone a chance to keep an office and maybe vote if the election is withing a week but if you deregistered it was not that important for you anyway and you don't need 7 days for that, 2 days waiting period is enough. If we can register again whenever we want, there are little consequences to deregistering, there is no meaninful utility to have a law on waiting period for deregistration.

Not adding a waiting period for deregistration keeps things simple for counting days, you just check the post in the registration thread to see when someone deregistered. You don't have to add an arbitrary number of days decided by Nyman to make it official, and then add a number of days before you can return.

Let people be free to go when they decide. If someone decides to take a break it's effective when they decide. If ithe law says 30 days before coming back, someone decided to take a month break starting November 20, they can return December 21. A waiting period for deregistration extends the 30 day break because you are adding artificially a number of days before deregistration is officia. You are makin longer the period before someone can return (I'm not talking of people you change their mind every day and can reverse their decision the next day). It also makes keeping track less easy since the deregistration date in the registration thread is not the official date of deregistration.

My viewpoint is based on not making wait too long players before they can come back after deregistering and assumed there is going to be a period of wait before coming back.       

Well I would tend to agree at least in part, and a good bit of why I voted for the waiting period and for it to be at seven was in anticipation that the restriction would be past at some length (it did pass the Senate overwhelmingly), and if it is going to happen, we should definitely have that in place.

If that were to fail the House though, then I would be open to revisiting the waiting period and maybe even shortening it since it is not occurring against a backdrop of an anticipated subsequent bill coming down the pike like happened here.

And yes I would agree completely, that these should have been kept together but I would note that these were both Senate originated bills and so their separation is something that the Senators would have to answer to.

[Poirot]

I am against the Voting clarification amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
[/quote]

I prefer to keep the voting period 72 hours that ends at the strike of midnight like it was always. It's a long enough period to vote and adding one minute is not essential.

That being said if there is clarification on voting hours it should be made in the electoral law and not the Bill of Rights in the constitution. There could be consequences in putting voting hours in the bill of Rights. Does this mean no other election at any level can be held except from Friday to Saturday. It's unclear to me if this would also apply to referendums. Would regions be forced to used the same voting calendar for regional elections? I think the South can have a special election to replace a delegate that would not start on a Friday. I think it was a principle (if not a right) to let regions administer their elections.     

[wxtransit]

I am against the Voting clarification amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I prefer to keep the voting period 72 hours that ends at the strike of midnight like it was always. It's a long enough period to vote and adding one minute is not essential.

That being said if there is clarification on voting hours it should be made in the electoral law and not the Bill of Rights in the constitution. There could be consequences in putting voting hours in the bill of Rights. Does this mean no other election at any level can be held except from Friday to Saturday. It's unclear to me if this would also apply to referendums. Would regions be forced to used the same voting calendar for regional elections? I think the South can have a special election to replace a delegate that would not start on a Friday. I think it was a principle (if not a right) to let regions administer their elections.    
[/quote]

I believe clarity, not ambiguity, is the best for Atlasia. If you want to believe different, then fine. Just know that you may incite another long, drawn-out TimTurner vs. Peebs, which still leaves the exact result of the Southern election that was held last month outstanding. Read the entire thread and all of the arguments. I think you will find that clarifying far outweighs not clarifying.  Maybe adding one minute is not essential, but specifying the second is. Either 00:00:00 or 00:00:59 works, but 00:00 doesn't. That leaves too much open to interpretation.

I, and many other Atlasians, are for the Voting Clarification Amendment.

[cinyc]

I am against the Voting clarification amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I prefer to keep the voting period 72 hours that ends at the strike of midnight like it was always. It's a long enough period to vote and adding one minute is not essential.

That being said if there is clarification on voting hours it should be made in the electoral law and not the Bill of Rights in the constitution. There could be consequences in putting voting hours in the bill of Rights. Does this mean no other election at any level can be held except from Friday to Saturday. It's unclear to me if this would also apply to referendums. Would regions be forced to used the same voting calendar for regional elections? I think the South can have a special election to replace a delegate that would not start on a Friday. I think it was a principle (if not a right) to let regions administer their elections.    
[/quote]

I believe clarity, not ambiguity, is the best for Atlasia. If you want to believe different, then fine. Just know that you may incite another long, drawn-out TimTurner vs. Peebs, which still leaves the exact result of the Southern election that was held last month outstanding. Read the entire thread and all of the arguments. I think you will find that clarifying far outweighs not clarifying.  Maybe adding one minute is not essential, but specifying the second is. Either 00:00:00 or 00:00:59 works, but 00:00 doesn't. That leaves too much open to interpretation.

I, and many other Atlasians, are for the Voting Clarification Amendment.
[/quote]

Poirot's second point - that putting this in the constitution without further clarification could lead to unexpected rights created in non-federal elections - is a valid one that I think needs to be addressed by the House before the amendment is sent to the Senate. Otherwise, I'll have to offer a Senate amendment to address it. Perhaps you need to say this:

All posts made in a federal voting booth between 11:59:59 PM Eastern Standard Time on the Thursday before the weekend of voting to 12:00:59 AM Eastern Standard Time on the Monday immediately following that same weekend shall be considered as ballots. No citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote.

But, as Poirot said, this is probably best off being left to the relevant federal election law (where is it now?). I'd worry that divorcing the all posts made in a booth from the no citizen shall cast multiple ballots language could muddy what's a valid ballot for regional purposes.

[wxtransit]

I am against the Voting clarification amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I prefer to keep the voting period 72 hours that ends at the strike of midnight like it was always. It's a long enough period to vote and adding one minute is not essential.

That being said if there is clarification on voting hours it should be made in the electoral law and not the Bill of Rights in the constitution. There could be consequences in putting voting hours in the bill of Rights. Does this mean no other election at any level can be held except from Friday to Saturday. It's unclear to me if this would also apply to referendums. Would regions be forced to used the same voting calendar for regional elections? I think the South can have a special election to replace a delegate that would not start on a Friday. I think it was a principle (if not a right) to let regions administer their elections.    

I believe clarity, not ambiguity, is the best for Atlasia. If you want to believe different, then fine. Just know that you may incite another long, drawn-out TimTurner vs. Peebs, which still leaves the exact result of the Southern election that was held last month outstanding. Read the entire thread and all of the arguments. I think you will find that clarifying far outweighs not clarifying.  Maybe adding one minute is not essential, but specifying the second is. Either 00:00:00 or 00:00:59 works, but 00:00 doesn't. That leaves too much open to interpretation.

I, and many other Atlasians, are for the Voting Clarification Amendment.
[/quote]

Poirot's second point - that putting this in the constitution without further clarification could lead to unexpected rights created in non-federal elections - is a valid one that I think needs to be addressed by the House before the amendment is sent to the Senate. Otherwise, I'll have to offer a Senate amendment to address it. Perhaps you need to say this:

All posts made in a federal voting booth between 11:59:59 PM Eastern Standard Time on the Thursday before the weekend of voting to 12:00:59 AM Eastern Standard Time on the Monday immediately following that same weekend shall be considered as ballots. No citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote.

But, as Poirot said, this is probably best off being left to the relevant federal election law (where is it now?). I'd worry that divorcing the all posts made in a booth from the no citizen shall cast multiple ballots language could muddy what's a valid ballot for regional purposes.
[/quote]

I'm all for an amendment that addresses that.

[Poirot]

I believe clarity, not ambiguity, is the best for Atlasia. If you want to believe different, then fine.

I believe clarity is best but I don't believe the Bill of Rights of the constitution is the appropriate place to specify the voting hours of elections. For the federal elections it is in the Federal electoral act. I don't see the reason we need to take the voting hours out of the elections act to put it in the bill of rights when a small fix to specify the seconds can be made in the electoral law.

If you put the voting hours in the supreme law of the land it becomes not flexible at all. For example if the booth opens late and the voting hours need to be extended or other special reason, I don't think the election administrator can have discretionary power over the bill of rights who says between what hours posts are considered ballots.

As for the voting hours, I prefer we continue with votes having to be posted before midnight (or 1 am if this can still happen). There has to be a deadline and adding 1 minute to the 72 hours is not neceesary. Just clarify the deadline is exactly midnight without seconds.

[wxtransit]

As for the voting hours, I prefer we continue with votes having to be posted before midnight (or 1 am if this can still happen). There has to be a deadline and adding 1 minute to the 72 hours is not neceesary. Just clarify the deadline is exactly midnight without seconds.

Midnight without seconds: 12:00 AM, can be interpreted as anytime from 12:00:00 AM to 12:00:59 AM.

Midnight with seconds: 12:00:00 or 12:00:59 AM, no interpretation.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

As for the voting hours, I prefer we continue with votes having to be posted before midnight (or 1 am if this can still happen). There has to be a deadline and adding 1 minute to the 72 hours is not neceesary. Just clarify the deadline is exactly midnight without seconds.

Midnight without seconds: 12:00 AM, can be interpreted as anytime from 12:00:00 AM to 12:00:59 AM.

Midnight with seconds: 12:00:00 or 12:00:59 AM, no interpretation.

if you go anywhere in the adult business world and even in school, this is pretty clear lol, although most people make it 11:59 PM sharp, a lot will also set midnight sharp as a deadline.

[wxtransit]

I'm not sure if this is the area to post this, but if the amendment for the MADA bill passes in the Senate, I will vote Nay on the bill in the House as it removes the major binding function of the bill. Once every two months is almost like our situation now. Once every month provides considerably more debate than present.

I'd rather see a complete bill passed than a half-baked one.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not sure if this is the area to post this, but if the amendment for the MADA bill passes in the Senate, I will vote Nay on the bill in the House as it removes the major binding function of the bill. Once every two months is almost like our situation now. Once every month provides considerably more debate than present.

I'd rather see a complete bill passed than a half-baked one.

You can post this directly into the Senate debate thread so will be more apt to see it.

[Sestak]

Does Atlasia not have a conference system?

[wxtransit]

Does Atlasia not have a conference system?

What do you mean?

[Sestak]

Does Atlasia not have a conference system?

What do you mean?

Essentially, bills the houses can't agree on go to a conference committee by the following path:

House A Passes Bill
House B Passes Amended Bill
House A Rejects House B Amendment
(Optional step: House B Rejects Unamended Bill)

Both steps 3 and 4 would be done without debate/further amendment.

After conference, the resulting bill would be sent to both houses and immediately voted on. If it fails in either house, it's dead.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Does Atlasia not have a conference system?

What do you mean?

Essentially, bills the houses can't agree on go to a conference committee by the following path:

House A Passes Bill
House B Passes Amended Bill
House A Rejects House B Amendment
(Optional step: House B Rejects Unamended Bill)

Both steps 3 and 4 would be done without debate/further amendment.

After conference, the resulting bill would be sent to both houses and immediately voted on. If it fails in either house, it's dead.

There was at the start of the bicameral system, but there was a lot of problems in other areas including blatantly unconstitutional aspects of the rules as well as a failure to integrate the VP into the proceedings, and his job is to manage that whole process according to the constitution leading to a complete collapse of the Congress during my term as President. When it became clear that I lacked the ability to grab victory from the jaws of defeat (which DFW went on to accomplish that month), I dropped down to House with a goal of either becoming Speaker or burning the place down to force change.

At the time my priority was making sure the chambers worked and that the VP was doing his job to keep things moving between them. But the house rules did maintain the conference provision, simply because it was passed first and before the discussion that took place later in the Senate.

House Rules

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the Senate passed their updated rules (based off the ones that Never and myself composed for the House), they eliminated the passage about conferences.

Senate Rules

The main problem is that the Constitution dictates a precise process and doesn't really allow for an opening for a conference committee. The discussion between Siren, myself and PiT lays that out here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260538.msg5567786#msg5567786

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was I think modified slightly later on.

[Anna Komnene]

Can I get a clarification on the situation with the South senate seat? Is Spiral still in the senate or is it ShadowyAbyss? Because if Spiral is not in the senate, I guess that would mean I am PPT for the next week. It would be good to know.

[Poirot]

Comments on the House Federal Electoral Act of 2018

For transparency, changes proposed to a current law should be clearli identified, using bold or strike in the text or detailing in text the proposed changes (ex: I added line number 5 in section 5, I changed from 5 to 4 the number of months in section 3)

There is a vague explanation of reducung the missed election clause. That is changing the number of months for missed election from 6 to 4. Four months is missing a Presidential/House election and then missing the folllowing House election. If that happens you can't vote anymore. People will be kicked out quicker. So if we want to retain citizens as much as poosible that is a strange way to do it. 

I stumbled on a change that was not mentioned anywhere. In section 14.6 the number of voters needed to be a major party is increased from 3 to 5. I'm against making it more difficult for small or new parties to have recognition.   

I still don't see the rationale in adding one minute to the voting hours. It has been exactly 72 hours. Just clarify midnight 0 seconds for the closing time if someone could exploit a loophole. No need to go to 72 hours 1 minute of voting time, we have enough time to vote already and 72 hours is a round number.

[Poirot]

Another comment on section 8 of the Federal Electoral Act of 2018

On the candidacy declaration deadline. It is 72 hours before before the commencement of the election or special election. In the previous electoral act it was 24 hours but I think there could have been some modifications more recently to make it 48 or 72 hours. What is the deadline currently and is 72 hours before a special election too much time because sometimes special elections happen very quickly.

Edit: I found the modification that was adopted on the candidacy declaration deadline.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272198.msg5915084#msg5915084

Right now it is 72 hours before a regular election, 24 hours before a special elections and to withdraw it's 72 hours before the election. 

The new law proposes 72 hours for regular, 72 hours for special election and returns to 24 hours to withdraw.

So two changes there that nobody mentioned.