Proposed Amendment to the Midwest Constitution

[SPC]

Hello, Midwesterners. After seeing the debate over whether abstained votes should count, I've decided to offer an amendment on the regional level to clear this up. Here is the proposed amendment:

Validity of Abstaintions Amendment
Section 1: With regards to votes on regional propisitions and constitutional amendments, abstaintions shall count in the election.
Section 2: An absolute majority of "yes" votes shall be required for the passage of the regional proposition or constitutional amendment by the Midwest Region.
Section 3: If the caster of the abstained vote does not wish for his/her vote to be counted, they may clarify that on their ballot.

[ilikeverin]

Hmm, all right, I suppose.

ilikeverin  This'll be on the ballot in October.  Remind me

This isn't technically an "amendment", by the way, because you don't seem to be adding it anywhere.

[Јas]

The Midwest 10th Amendment renders this proposal redundant.

[Ebowed]

Jas, stop letting facts get in the way of progress.

[minionofmidas]

remove Section 3, and I'll vote for it.

[Speed of Sound]

I would like to propose an amendment as well

Invalidity of Abstaintions Amendment

Section 1: With regards to votes on regional propisitions and constitutional amendments, abstaintions shall not count in the election, but will be recorded for activity purposes.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=62659.msg1302561#msg1302561

My argument against SPCs amendment and for mine^^^

[Јas]

I'll reiterate that the Midwestern 10th Amendment means that for votes on initiatives and propositions and such within the region, abstentions are counted as pure abstentions.

SPC's proposal would only complicate this area of law by allowing for 2 classes of abstention votes, true abstentions and constructive Nay votes.

The issue of abstentions = nay votes arises singularly regarding votes on amendments to the federal constitution due to the particular wording of the section on amendments therein. It would take a federal amendment to change this situation.

[Verily]

Just wondering, is there any particular reason that an amendment specifically would be necessary to define an "Abstain" vote? Wouldn't a law suffice?

[Јas]

Just wondering, is there any particular reason that an amendment specifically would be necessary to define an "Abstain" vote? Wouldn't a law suffice?

There's no need to define an abstention. I

The relevant clause states:
"The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by a majority of the People voting in public polls in three-quarters of the Regions."

My take on this clause is that the Ayes must receive an absolute majority of votes cast for the region to approve ratification, and so abstentions, in this instance, counting towards the total vote are effectively Nays. It should be noted that this is my interpretation (though I believe it is shared by a number of others) and that comments of Justice bullmoose would indicate he, at least, takes a different view.

If my opinion is correct then it would take a constitutional amendment to alter the position.

[minionofmidas]

Your opinion is definitely correct. And it should stay that way.

[Јas]

Your opinion is definitely correct. And it should stay that way.

Absolutely, I won't let that opinion go anywhere.

[Speed of Sound]

I'll reiterate that the Midwestern 10th Amendment means that for votes on initiatives and propositions and such within the region, abstentions are counted as pure abstentions.

SPC's proposal would only complicate this area of law by allowing for 2 classes of abstention votes, true abstentions and constructive Nay votes.

The issue of abstentions = nay votes arises singularly regarding votes on amendments to the federal constitution due to the particular wording of the section on amendments therein. It would take a federal amendment to change this situation.

Then I officially request this be considered by the senate. Thank you, sir, for the clarification.

[bullmoose88]

Just wondering, is there any particular reason that an amendment specifically would be necessary to define an "Abstain" vote? Wouldn't a law suffice?

There's no need to define an abstention. I

The relevant clause states:
"The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by a majority of the People voting in public polls in three-quarters of the Regions."

My take on this clause is that the Ayes must receive an absolute majority of votes cast for the region to approve ratification, and so abstentions, in this instance, counting towards the total vote are effectively Nays. It should be noted that this is my interpretation (though I believe it is shared by a number of others) and that comments of Justice bullmoose would indicate he, at least, takes a different view.

If my opinion is correct then it would take a constitutional amendment to alter the position.

We only disagree on the definition of the gerund, "voting."

[Јas]

Just wondering, is there any particular reason that an amendment specifically would be necessary to define an "Abstain" vote? Wouldn't a law suffice?

There's no need to define an abstention. I

The relevant clause states:
"The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by a majority of the People voting in public polls in three-quarters of the Regions."

My take on this clause is that the Ayes must receive an absolute majority of votes cast for the region to approve ratification, and so abstentions, in this instance, counting towards the total vote are effectively Nays. It should be noted that this is my interpretation (though I believe it is shared by a number of others) and that comments of Justice bullmoose would indicate he, at least, takes a different view.

If my opinion is correct then it would take a constitutional amendment to alter the position.

We only disagree on the definition of the gerund, "voting."

Yep, but it's a very important difference.