SENATE RESOLUTION: The Recall of Senators Amendment (Passed)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With these changes, I can only recommend that the Amendment be soundly rejected, as it compromises the ability of the regions to regulate their own elections and potentially makes senators answerable to recall by an electorate different from that which put them in office (in the event a region opted to conduct senatorial elections in the regional legislature).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With these changes, I can only recommend that the Amendment be soundly rejected, as it compromises the ability of the regions to regulate their own elections and potentially makes senators answerable to recall by an electorate different from that which put them in office (in the event a region opted to conduct senatorial elections in the regional legislature).

How does it affect the ability of regions to regulate their own elections?

Senators shall be subject to recall in each Region, according to the provisions that at least a quarter of registered voters in the respective Region must sign a petition to initiate a recall, an initiated recall vote must require the turnout of at least half of registered voters in the respective Region; and three-fifths of all votes, excluding abstentions, must be cast in favor of the recall [. . .]

The amendment establishes strict and onerous conditions for the recall of Senators, and mandates that all recall elections be conducted by popular vote. This eliminates the ability of the regions to determine the procedure for Senatorial recall, and in the event a region should chose to elect its senators by a vote of the regional legislature, would open up a scenario where senators are appointed by one body of voters (the regional parliament/council/Chamber of Delegates) and subject to removal by another (the population at-large). Senatorial recall elections are a bad idea anyways (usurping the Senate's exclusive right to judge the qualifications of its members), and if it comes with the additional price of the federal government controlling the process from beginning to end, it's certainly not a price worth paying.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will campaign against ratification if the Senate votes to pass the bill as written. The original version of this amendment (which I wrote) gave the regions the option of allowing senatorial recall elections in their Constitutions and left the methods for conducting such elections to the regions themselves. The current text, by contrast, would diminish regional autonomy by requiring the regions to conduct senatorial recall elections under certain circumstances and enumerating exactly how and when those elections are to take place. We worked very hard at the ConCon to avoid this kind of federal overreach, and it would be terribly ironic if the Senate—supposedly the house of the regions—were to begin the march of rolling back that progress.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I thank the Senator from Lincoln for his remarks, which I hold, as I do him, in the highest regard.

When it comes to potential abuse, I stand by what I said almost four years ago when I voted with a majority of the ConCon to give over control of Senatorial elections to the regions.

I should note that, as a matter of principle, I do not support empowering the Regional legislatures to elect the Senate. If we want the federal system to be at all meaningful, however, we must give the Regions real responsibilities, and that means creating the possibility that they will make mistakes. If our continual response to vesting more powers in the Regions is, "Oh, not that, that's too important," the Regions will continue to be powerless and people will continue to not give two cents about Regional elections.

I've argued for and against a circus of schemes for constitutional reform in the last four years, and after a while, you start to see the same lines and objections come up again and again. The Senator's argument, while made I am sure in good faith, is a bad one. Here's why:

(a) Reading his posts, I have no idea what "abuses" he imagines are imminent or why he thinks they are likely to occur. All constitutional systems are subject to abuse. This is true of the central government and of the Regions. When arranging our system of government, however, we should confine ourselves to facts and evidence backed up by careful observation of the way the politics of this country actually unfold—not on unfounded suspicions of unknown crimes anticipated in the vague future.

This non-specific fear of "CORRUPTION!" inevitably comes up as the motivation for various restrictive "reforms," most recently in debate over the  the Anti-pluralism Amendment, when it was argued we must abolish dual officeholding because an Attorney General who also serves in their regional government is one step short of dictatorship—despite no evidence that dual officeholding has harmed the country in any way whatsoever in the last three years (but I digress).

(b) "The Regions can't be trusted, centralize all power in Nyman" is a line almost as old as non-specific fears of corruption, and just as unfounded. There's really no reason to believe elections are more likely to be free and fair if regulated by Congress as opposed to the Regions. Alternatively, if the Regions cannot be trusted to administer recall elections fairly, how are other elections any different? Should all elections for regional office be administered by the DoFE, for fear of potential "abuse" by regional administrators?

This gets at a larger pattern, however, of trying to prevent non-existant corruption with layers of restrictive legislation and bureaucracy. No amount of legislation will eliminate the potential for corruption, because corruption is a failure of character and not of laws. We see this all the time in reform proposals which basically amount to attempts to ban Congress or the Regions from making bad laws. If you're worried that your Region will make a bad call when setting down the rules for Senatorial recall elections, then get involved in regional politics, contact your representatives, and find a solution. Ultimately, Congress cannot hold the Regions' hands and save them from their own stupidity while also preserving the Regions as relevant actors in national politics. Again, "If our continual response to vesting more powers in the Regions is, "Oh, not that, that's too important," the Regions will continue to be powerless and people will continue to not give two cents about Regional elections."

(c) Every Region currently allow for the recall of their executive and the members of their legislature. Are these rules "dangerous and easily abused?" If not, why do we think the Regions will suddenly go mad with power if allowed to make rules for Senatorial recall elections (which in all likelihood would be the same as the existing rules for the recall of regional officers) as well?


It comes down to whether Senatorial elections should be regulated by the federal government or by the Regions. I contend—with the majority of the ConCon in 2015—that if the Senate is supposed to speak for the Regions, the Regions ought to have the final say in how its members are elected. Giving Nyman control over Senatorial recall elections takes away that power by giving the federal government the final say on whether, and how, a Senator's mandate may be rescinded. That, not the phantom of non-existant abuse, is the real danger of this amendment—and why it must be defeated in its present form.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I imagine this wording would be better in your opinion?

Considering I wrote it, yes.

Windjammer makes a strong argument for why Senators should not be subject to recall at all—maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think the point of his post is that Senatorial recall elections should be federally regulated so much as they just shouldn't be allowed, as the concerns he raises would still apply to the amendment as currently written. Unless the Senate intends to outlaw strategic registration altogether (and it would be very difficult to do that without passing a blanket ban on all regional moves, or requiring Congress approve each move individually), there's no way to prevent the kind of abuse the chief justice describes if we are going to allow Senatorial recall elections to proceed.

Personally, I would rather no amendment be passed than a bad amendment, considering we already have a mechanism for removing malperforming Senators (expulsion).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Well we do need a amendment to sort this in some way, because at current it is unclear whether the regions hold the power of recall or not.

Not really. We don't need to add a line to the Constitution every time someone is wrong.

Besides, giving the Courts something to do isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My instincts tell me that Truman is right and that we should give the discretion to the regions on how to structure them. However, once such has been given I: would certainly encourage the regions to make it difficult to abuse the process.

One provision I'd encourage the regions to adopt in the event this passes and is ratified, would be to limit participation in popular recall elections to citizens who were eligible to vote in the last regular election for that seat—thus hopefully avoiding the peril of strategic registration that Windjammer rightly warns of.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

When it comes down to it, you can't have Senatorial recall, and preserve regional control over Senatorial elections, and eliminate all avenues for corruption and abuse. Any system that allows Senators to be removed by the voting public before the expiration of their term is going to be vulnerable to some kind of malpractice, and every solution to every potential line of skullduggery comes with its own caveats. If you want to protect against strategic registration and still allow Senators to be recalled, that means restricting democracy to some extent (whether with a residency requirement, or a threshold, or both, or something else entirely). If you want to prevent strategic registration from changing the composition of the Senate midterm without restricting absolute democracy, you have to give up on Senatorial recall. It's a matter of tradeoffs and priorities.

Personally, I find Sestak's slippery slope argument unconvincing, though people falling off the rolls between a Senator's election and the end of their term is a valid point. In any event, this is a debate I expect will play out in the regional legislatures should Congress pass and the public ratify the original amendment.

I would also add the issue that having to control several electorates for recalls would be very hard for the Registrar General and Secretary of Elections and we should not make their lives harder (especially since they are the same person currently, but even if split it's not a good idea)

I'm not sure I follow this line of argument. It would be up to the regions to enforce their own rules regarding Senatorial recalls, so the RG/SoFE would play no part in seeing this implemented —if one or more regions decided to go this rout.