Electoral System Reform Bill

[jokerman]

Does NOBODY actually read the amendments that they vote on with anything approaching a critical viewpoint?

I didn't think so.

The amendment you just approved in your (as ever) infinitesimal wisdom requires that Sections 1 through 3 shall not have effect unless "50 % plus one of registered voters shall vote in favor of its enactment in a national public poll". It places no time limits on the national public poll.

One can thus only assume that the poll lasts until literally we have a majority one way or the other. The present count has us at 106 citizens. Good luck getting 54 people to vote one way or the other in this.

I would also like to use this rant to point out that it should be Sections 1 through 4 of this Act, but that really is a footnote to the other problems.

Given that this bill potentially leaves the entire electoral system in long term limbo, I must vote:

Nay

I am of the belief of the interpretation that the time limit is to be a reasonable time set by whoever is appointed for the duty, and that a majority of the registered voters voting in that particular vote shall be the benchmark.

[Democratic Hawk]

I would also like to use this rant to point out that it should be Sections 1 through 4 of this Act, but that really is a footnote to the other problems.

Either an oversight on my part Senator, or a simple numerative error (it can happen). My apologies

Iif the Senate feels it appropriate I'll amend Section 16 of the Bill to reflect that Sections 1 through to 4 , rather than Sections 1-3, are to be subject to a public vote. I'm also prepared to stipulate a time limit for the public vote

'Hawk'

[Gabu]

We really need to implement some form of "implicit inclusion of parameters that really should be obvious" to our lawmaking, to make it so that someone other than Peter Bell or Emsworth is capable of writing some piece of legislation of any form of significance.

It really makes it something less than fun to have to worry about every single minute technical detail that, legalistically speaking, needs to be accounted for, but which any rational person can see should be the case, given the context.

[WMS]

We really need to implement some form of "implicit inclusion of parameters that really should be obvious" to our lawmaking, to make it so that someone other than Peter Bell or Emsworth is capable of writing some piece of legislation of any form of significance.

It really makes it something less than fun to have to worry about every single minute technical detail that, legalistically speaking, needs to be accounted for, but which any rational person can see should be the case, given the context.

Word.

[Yates]

I understand Peter Bell's argument, but believe that, as was said previously, a rational individual conducting these polls would set a reasonable time limit.

[Emsworth]

Senators,

One of the rules of legal interpretation is that the court should adhere to the literal meaning of the text, unless that would lead to a manifest absurdity. In such cases, the court may deviate from the literal meaning of the words, and interpret them more broadly.

I will not comment on the precise application of this rule to the bill currently before us, in case a legal controversy develops. But I just thought that the Senate should be aware of this rule.

[jokerman]

Senators,

One of the rules of legal interpretation is that the court should adhere to the literal meaning of the text, unless that would lead to a manifest absurdity. In such cases, the court may deviate from the literal meaning of the words, and interpret them more broadly.

I will not comment on the precise application of this rule to the bill currently before us, in case a legal controversy develops. But I just thought that the Senate should be aware of this rule.

I think this would constitute a manifest absurdity.  Also, let the court take the intentions of the Senators who wrote the amendment into consideration.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm still prepared to introduce a technical amendment to read:

1) After passage in the Senate, Sections 1-4 of this Bill shall not be put into place unless a majority of 50 % plus one of registered voters shall vote in favor of its enactment in a national public poll administered by either the Vice President or President Pro Tempore
2) Should Sections 1-4 be approved by public vote then they will be incorporated into this Act; however, should they not Sections 1-3 of the Unified Electoral Code Act will be incorporated into this Act.

The amendment being Sections 1-4, rather than Sections 1-3, if it's preferable. I can also incorporate a time limit for the public poll in Clause 2

Of course, if the change in voting system fails to be approved, the whole Bill in itself will need re-numbering, since Section 3, pertaining to Run-off Candidates, of the Bill will be irrelevant

'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

Nobody can introduce any more amendments because:


With 6 Ayes, 1 Nay and 1 Abstention this bill has passed. I hereby present it to the President for his signiture.

[Peter]

I think this would constitute a manifest absurdity.

A manifest absurdity is a situation in which we have a logical contradiction or something so outrageous that it could never actually be practicable.

In this case, neither apply, though I would happily agree the terms under which the bill can now gain passage at the public poll stage will be difficult to attain, nonetheless, it is actually possible.

[CheeseWhiz]

Abstain, FTR.

[MasterJedi]

With 6 Ayes, 1 Nay and 1 Abstention this bill has passed. I hereby present it to the President for his signiture.

Moving this to the next page so Ebowed can see.

[Ebowed]

Ebowed