Congressional Discussion Thread

[Devout Centrist]

Asking a member of Congress to sponsor this on behalf of the administration.

Paid Time Off Act

A Bill

To establish federal baselines for requiring businesses to provide paid time off to employees.

Be it enacted in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled,

Section 1. Definitions
1. Employers - companies that employ 50 or more employees
2. Full-time employee - employees who work a minimum of 40 hours per week.

Section 2. Paid Time Off
1. Effective January 1, 2020, employers shall be required to provide 5 paid vacation days per year to all full-time employees.
2. Effective January 1, 2022, employers shall be required to provide 10 paid vacation days per year to all full-time employees.
3. Employers are permitted and encouraged to exceed these baseline requirements.
4. Regional governments are permitted to increase these baseline requirements in their region

I will go ahead and sponsor this Act on behalf of the President

[Poirot]

Seeing the higher level of activity the week(s) before the June election, it reaffirmed my reluctance to lower requirements for voter eligibility, like the time to be in the game before having the right to vote or making it easier to change regions or keeping citizens longer when they miss consecutive elections.

I don't believe  the Voter Eligibility Reform Act (HB 18-6) is good for the game. It makes it easier for inactive, uninterested or party armies to influence elections. Keeping citizens on the census list even more than six months without voting just inflate the total amount of voters by keeping the dead wood. There is no real penalty to rejoin the game if they wish later anyway. Reducing the 7 days time after registering to have the right to vote makes it easier for parties to build their armies to win an election only a few days away. Having last minute new voters is not desirable.       

[Poirot]

My citizen's opinion on lowering the requirements in the Coter Eligibility Reform Act now in the Senate.

I think the proposed changes are moving the game in the wrong direction. It makes it easier to be mostly a numbers game. By lowering the eligibility standards you possibly get even more voters who don't follow Atlasian life or are not very interested, or who don't post in Atlasia but only come out to vote for someone / a party because a player tells them to.

Lowering the number of days to be registered from 7 days to 4 gives even more time closer to the election for mass registration operation of parties. We've seen before the June election deadline a flurry of activity in the new registration thread. I'm not sure new voters can really know what is going on in 4 days.

Reducing the time for regional move to 3 months helps strategic regional registration. Citizens will be more mobile so a party who feels threatened or want to take a region in the next election will be able to move some people around more freely. And there is more time to move people since you could do it until 4 days before the election instead of 7.

Cutting in half he post requirements from 10 to 5 in the last 56 days helps people who don't post much. I could have benefited from this in the past since sometimes I read Atlasia but didn't post and thought I have to start posting if I need 10 posts. But it can also help voters who are rarely Atlas visitors.

Requiring 8 months of missing elections instead of 6 to be deregistered will keep inactive people or who are not really interested for a longer time on the voters list. It inflates the total population of the game. It is great for political parties who will get a longer contact list to get some additional votes. It helps for zombie voting operation.

The changes are very good for electoral tactics based on numbers but not for the quality and health of a democratic and civic life in Atlasia. 

[Former President tack50]

My citizen's opinion on lowering the requirements in the Coter Eligibility Reform Act now in the Senate.

I think the proposed changes are moving the game in the wrong direction. It makes it easier to be mostly a numbers game. By lowering the eligibility standards you possibly get even more voters who don't follow Atlasian life or are not very interested, or who don't post in Atlasia but only come out to vote for someone / a party because a player tells them to.

Lowering the number of days to be registered from 7 days to 4 gives even more time closer to the election for mass registration operation of parties. We've seen before the June election deadline a flurry of activity in the new registration thread. I'm not sure new voters can really know what is going on in 4 days.

Reducing the time for regional move to 3 months helps strategic regional registration. Citizens will be more mobile so a party who feels threatened or want to take a region in the next election will be able to move some people around more freely. And there is more time to move people since you could do it until 4 days before the election instead of 7.

Cutting in half he post requirements from 10 to 5 in the last 56 days helps people who don't post much. I could have benefited from this in the past since sometimes I read Atlasia but didn't post and thought I have to start posting if I need 10 posts. But it can also help voters who are rarely Atlas visitors.

Requiring 8 months of missing elections instead of 6 to be deregistered will keep inactive people or who are not really interested for a longer time on the voters list. It inflates the total population of the game. It is great for political parties who will get a longer contact list to get some additional votes. It helps for zombie voting operation.

The changes are very good for electoral tactics based on numbers but not for the quality and health of a democratic and civic life in Atlasia. 

While I did an amendment in the House, I believe you are right on this one.

We need to strike a balance between too many zombies and light requirements (which only encourages dirty strategies like strategic registration) and having too strict requirements (which lead to only a very tiny core of people actually being here).

I think the status quo rules are probably fine.

[Poirot]

I have a problem with the wording of the Double Posting Leniency Act. By removing the cast multiple ballot during the voting period reference, I think it creates a loophole for changing or editing a ballot after the 20 minutes. A voter could cast a second ballot one day fater a first one and delete the first one and it could legal because there is only one ballot at the end of the election and the ballot was not technically edited after 20 minutes.

If you want the voter to realise and delete the second vote within the 20 minutes maybe deleting ballot could be like editing allowed within 20 minutes.
Maybe if you want to avoid someone changing a ballot by casting a second one you could make deleting a ballot illegal but let the Secretary of Elections use judgement in counting only one ballot seeing the two ballots are the same (since we are talking double posting by mistake), or allowed to delete a ballot with permission of the SoFE but that requires the elections official to be easily accessible during elections.     

[tmthforu94]

Comstock Act Repeal of 2019

To Ease Access to Birth Control Information

SECTION 1.

1. The Comstock Act of 1873 is hereby repealed. 18 U.S. Code § 1462 is hereby repealed..

SECTION 2.

1. This Act shall go into effect immediately

Freedom bill, even though most of Comstock Act already been declared unconstitutional!!!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Comstock Act Repeal of 2019

To Ease Access to Birth Control Information

SECTION 1.

1. The Comstock Act of 1873 is hereby repealed. 18 U.S. Code § 1462 is hereby repealed..

SECTION 2.

1. This Act shall go into effect immediately

Freedom bill, even though most of Comstock Act already been declared unconstitutional!!!

Still not sure why we need this bill when this literal word for word proposal is on the phucking floor right now already and there is no legitimate reason for it not to be still on the floor after today unless I missed something.

[Poirot]

Copied from the Double posting leniency:

Isn't that a little to wordy for the constitution though? I recall Truman desiring to keep things in the Constitution simple and where further clarity was needed such as this, it should be left to statute for the sake of simplicity. Perhaps this situation necessitates it, but I would like to have his input on the matter first since I recall him saying that back in the convention.

The reason why we have the no multiple ballots thing in the constitution is because of Blair vs. Rpryor, which ruled in pertinent part that we cannot invalidate votes for reasons not specified by the constitution. Before that case, multiple ballots and foreign language ballots were only prohibited by statute.

It's impractical to have to change the constitution every time we need to adjust reasons to invalidate a ballot. After the court case that saw the majority interpret the right to have ballot counted in such absolute way, we should have changed the constitution to right to vote and ballot being counted as long as voters respects voting laws and regulations in place. Then you detail in statute different reasons ballots are invalid or requirements to be counted. It's more flexible but also subject to mischievous objective by a majority in Congress.

[tmthforu94]

The previous attorney general, 1184AZ, was effectively forced into resignation

Inaccurate

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The previous attorney general, 1184AZ, was effectively forced into resignation

Inaccurate

I used effectively for a reason, I understand that you did not make him resign. What I meant was that public opinion of him was so low that he had little choice but to resign.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Copied from the Double posting leniency:

Isn't that a little to wordy for the constitution though? I recall Truman desiring to keep things in the Constitution simple and where further clarity was needed such as this, it should be left to statute for the sake of simplicity. Perhaps this situation necessitates it, but I would like to have his input on the matter first since I recall him saying that back in the convention.

The reason why we have the no multiple ballots thing in the constitution is because of Blair vs. Rpryor, which ruled in pertinent part that we cannot invalidate votes for reasons not specified by the constitution. Before that case, multiple ballots and foreign language ballots were only prohibited by statute.

It's impractical to have to change the constitution every time we need to adjust reasons to invalidate a ballot. After the court case that saw the majority interpret the right to have ballot counted in such absolute way, we should have changed the constitution to right to vote and ballot being counted as long as voters respects voting laws and regulations in place. Then you detail in statute different reasons ballots are invalid or requirements to be counted. It's more flexible but also subject to mischievous objective by a majority in Congress.

Just post in the debate threads, I am not Polnut, I welcome discussion from all corners.

[Poirot]

Just post in the debate threads, I am not Polnut, I welcome discussion from all corners.

I was educated when it was written somewhere that people not in government should not write in the debate threads, use the discussion thread. I see the reason for this, if many start writing in debate bills it can make debate more difficult to follow, someone writes when a vote is going on etc. And using the discussion thread could get debates among citizens or make them aware of some issues discussed.

[Poirot]

The None of the above act is on its way of being adopted. I hope this is not giving a tool eventually to a group of people who would want to derail an election or block someone from winning. I prefer if someone finds no good candidate to them, they write in a name, abstain or not vote than use the NOTA. People have time to declare and run camapigns weeks before the election so people on the ballot are candidate seeking the office. I don't see the point in telling them they are all not good enough.

I don't know how this could work but I had an idea. If we clutter the ballot with None of the above, maybe we could have an All of the above option. The reverse NOTA. Spreading the love like a I wish all of you could win option. Maybe every candidate is credited with +1 vote. Since every candidate gains a vote it basically nullifies the vote for the race but vote total increases. 

 

[Mr. Reactionary]

The None of the above act is on its way of being adopted. I hope this is not giving a tool eventually to a group of people who would want to derail an election or block someone from winning. I prefer if someone finds no good candidate to them, they write in a name, abstain or not vote than use the NOTA. People have time to declare and run camapigns weeks before the election so people on the ballot are candidate seeking the office. I don't see the point in telling them they are all not good enough.

I don't know how this could work but I had an idea. If we clutter the ballot with None of the above, maybe we could have an All of the above option. The reverse NOTA. Spreading the love like a I wish all of you could win option. Maybe every candidate is credited with +1 vote. Since every candidate gains a vote it basically nullifies the vote for the race but vote total increases. 

 

The thing is, "telling [candidates] they arent good enough" already happens. What else would you call it when only one candidate bothers to register in time, only to have a massive write-in campaign launched after the election starts? We had that occur several times in a row and it was making just as much of a mockery of registration deadlines as this proposal. At least with NOTA the goal is to basically extend the registration deadline rather than just ratify a refusal to register.

[Poirot]

If there is only one declared candidate maybe the candidate should win automatically. It would force people to declare in advance.

I remember the write-in when there was one candidate. I think it was on the regional ballot. This law is for federal ballot. I don't like the write in possibility maybe because it does not exist in real life for me but it seems to be an Atlasia or USA thing. It can be useful in some circumstances but not a fan of last minute write-ins to stop someone from winning. The declared candidate doesn't know the opponent or can't defend himself against an unknown ghost candidate.

[Poirot]

There is a proposal to icrease the number of members required in a party to be considered an officvial party (Makes peebs happy again act). I am against this. It will make it harder for small parties to exist or to take off if they are not visible or recognized. If some people find it fun to have their little party, it could lessen their fun. I know many people like a couple dominating parties and there are not many officeholders who have the small parties interest in mind but we should strive for rules that favor political diversity.

I don't know if the Registrar General has been lobbying in private for rules change and the reason for it. If the problem is many parties make it difficult to publish the census then I favor a method that make it easier to report the census instead of changing the rule for official party. 

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just post in the debate threads, I am not Polnut, I welcome discussion from all corners.

I was educated when it was written somewhere that people not in government should not write in the debate threads, use the discussion thread. I see the reason for this, if many start writing in debate bills it can make debate more difficult to follow, someone writes when a vote is going on etc. And using the discussion thread could get debates among citizens or make them aware of some issues discussed.

Around a year ago I floated a Lincoln Bill called the "Legislative Respect Act", which would have established a blanket policy that if someone who was not a federal or regional elected or appointed official posted in a Lincoln bill debate thread, their post would be immediately reported to the mods with a request to delete the post, regardless of its content. I was promptly criticized for it in private and ended up withdrawing the bill. Anecdotal Evidence is Anecdotal Evidence, but that certainly suggests we are living in different times.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just post in the debate threads, I am not Polnut, I welcome discussion from all corners.

I was educated when it was written somewhere that people not in government should not write in the debate threads, use the discussion thread. I see the reason for this, if many start writing in debate bills it can make debate more difficult to follow, someone writes when a vote is going on etc. And using the discussion thread could get debates among citizens or make them aware of some issues discussed.

Around a year ago I floated a Lincoln Bill called the "Legislative Respect Act", which would have established a blanket policy that if someone who was not a federal or regional elected or appointed official posted in a Lincoln bill debate thread, their post would be immediately reported to the mods with a request to delete the post, regardless of its content. I was promptly criticized for it in private and ended up withdrawing the bill. Anecdotal Evidence is Anecdotal Evidence, but that certainly suggests we are living in different times.

Back in early 2014, during what were arguably some of the most productive debates we have ever had in the Senate, we had in depth debate on issues and these often involved non-Senators such as Superique and Cincy (though he later became Vice President) who had a particular set of knowledge.

This mindset came into being in late 2014/early 2015 of exclusionary practices and was largely championed ironically by those tied to Atlasforum IRC (a place which had a reputation for being exclusive as well) and rejected by people such as Windjammer and I.  To the extent it ever existed, at least in the Senate, it was a mere blip on the radar of Atlasian history as I can never remember a time from 2009 through 2014 where such participation was restricted, nor since late 2015 as post July anarchy such an approach was viewed as closely identified with the radicals.

It is the height elitist exclusion for politicians to presume themselves more knowledgeable than the people they represent to the extent that one would willingly exclude valuable contributions for lack of title.

The reality is most members barely check the debate threads, thus one can be certain they don't check this thread. Offshoring relevant discussion to another thread is a sure fire way to compartmentalize and ignore valid points and contributions, which is probably why certain folks at the time preferred it.

[Poirot]

To the extent it ever existed, at least in the Senate, it was a mere blip on the radar of Atlasian history as I can never remember a time from 2009 through 2014 where such participation was restricted, nor since late 2015 as post July anarchy such an approach was viewed as closely identified with the radicals.

The restriction was probably never enforced but I remenber it was written somewhere (Introduction to atlasia? Senate rules?) since it gave me the impression the public participation should go to the Discussion thread.

People should use the discussion thread more (and elected officials check it). People could give their point of view, it could lead to debates between people, it can alert others on what is being discussed in Congress. As a citizen I don't check every bill thread but if I read something here I might go find out what it is about. That is why sometimes I post the same thing at the two places. The discussion thread is not used often. Sometimes I feel it's the Poirot thread.

I don't think working with a public thread for the public is made because of elitist politicians. I imagine it was to avoid disruption in debates. If two citizens start to argue, if it's get personal. It can make it more difficult for Speaker and elected officials to follow the process. A vote is started, then citizens have 6 posts of debate, then elected officials check the thread, sees the last posts but misses there is a new vote strated. It also makes it more difficult to count votes. I think it was to make the legilsative process clearer and not interrupted so it was suggested the public use the public thread. It's like the registration thread. I remember at some point it was for registration changes and please no comments. It makes it easier for the RG and everyone to keep track of changes. Now we are back at using the thread as a welcome mat.

It was just keeping the legislative thread more official and the public participate in the public thread. I feel when I post in a bill thread I am speaking to a few people (the elected officials) and when I post in the public thread I am talking to all citizens.     

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Whenever I start a vote. I update the topic line, I update the noticeboard and I PM/DM the Senators about it.

Disruption is a different matter, but most posts by outsiders are not disruptive. For instance I asked Lumine to post on the GI Joe Bill because I felt he was more knowledgeable about military hardware and could provide some perspective to the bill.

His posting contributed to the debate.

Such a provision may have indeed been in the old OSPR, but if such was the case, it predated my time here and like many provisions of that beastly 7,500 word document went unenforced.

[Poirot]

I visited the House again about the political party status bill.

I've already visited Congress a few times about this but here I am to beg you again to not proceed with raising the requirement to be an official party.

You don't have to hamper political diversity to change the census presentation. I have suggested other ways to present the census if it is a problem while not changing the status of political parties. Congress didn't even discuss alternative census presentations.

Congress looks determined to erase some parties to have a more compact census. It doesn't seem to care it will remove the fun for some people. A party of three might not be seeking to become a dominant party and is happy being small. They could have their fun, they are visible because they are official. A new party could have more trouble taking off because it will take more time to become official and visible in the census presentation.

Keeping it easier to reach official party status can make the political environment more dynamic. You are not taking away the fun for some. I don't think you should try to lower the number of parties like you are doing.   

[Poirot]

The Federal Electoral Act of 2019 in the process of being adopted reapeals the The Deputy Secretary of Federal Elections Act.
In the Deputy Secretary Act it says
"2. The office of Deputy Secretary of Federal Elections, nominated by the SoFE and confirmed by the Senate, shall hereby be created."
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Deputy_Secretary_of_Federal_Elections_Act

Does it mean there will no longer be a Deputy Secretary of Elections or does the SoFE have the power to create a deputy position with the power to manage a department.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Federal Electoral Act of 2019 in the process of being adopted reapeals the The Deputy Secretary of Federal Elections Act.
In the Deputy Secretary Act it says
"2. The office of Deputy Secretary of Federal Elections, nominated by the SoFE and confirmed by the Senate, shall hereby be created."
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Deputy_Secretary_of_Federal_Elections_Act

Does it mean there will no longer be a Deputy Secretary of Elections or does the SoFE have the power to create a deputy position with the power to manage a department.

I discussed this with Sestak and he pointed out an interesting note.

The Fourth Constitution set out to make cabinet positions derived from Executive Order to increase flexibility and thus it is even possible that the act in question is not even constitutional. Certainly in that arrangement that President could create such a deputy by EO.

[Poirot]

I have found in the constitution Article IV (The Executive), section 2 on the powers of the President,

3. to establish such executive departments as may be necessary for the execution of the laws, and to appoint their principal officers with the advice and consent of the Senate; (Amended June 2017)

Maybe principal officer means the top job only and not the assistant secretary, otherwise it would need Senate confirmation.

[Poirot]

I have many problems with the census bill.

It forbids people to deregister during a too long period. It keeps people from registering again if they change their mind for a too long period. The delay before registering again was reduced in an amendment but now there is an amendment to revert back to the longer delay.

The section on party organization, I'm not sure if it should be there. Maybe let the parties set their own rules. The bill require a majority of party members to agree for name change or merger. There are not many members participating in convention or endorsement vote so requiring a majority of members to vote on something seems a lot for big parties (maybe small parties can get a majority to vote since fewer members to contact).