Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

I mean the real question is:

Is Armentieux going to support this new 4 house citizens legislature proposal I'm writing with Supreme Leader Brototh?

Brototh

Toerana V wrote:I mean the real question is:

Is Armentieux going to support this new 4 house citizens legislature proposal I'm writing with Supreme Leader Brototh?

As we all know the EC is a political tool. Armen rigs elections in my favour, I reappoint him- quid pro quo. He will support my proposals /s

Toerana V, Armentieux

No concerns whatsoever with the nominee, I’m sure they will do a fine job and they have my full support

No concerns from my side, although I would like the candidate to elaborate on their "regional advertisements" if possible. Besides that my only question is if we the people will finally recieve popcorn during the election results.

Armentieux

Senators, we have begun voting on the nomination of Armentieux for Election Commissioner.

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Antenion (IND)

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

Taungu, Toerana V

Results:

Aye (7) Ashlawn Antenion Cerdenia Dendrobium Ermica Pap Sculgief Toerana V

Nay (0)

Abstain (0)

Armentieux's nomination for Election Commissioner has been approved by the Senate and will be sent to the House.

[spoiler=Speaker]

Marvinville[/spoiler]

Senators, we have begun debate on the Motion to Reduce the Senate - April 2021.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1532189

Indian Genius, Brototh, Toerana V, Dendrobium, Marvinville, Armentieux

When the first motion was proposed, I thought that it was a matter of common sense that we reduce the size of the Senate, that this reduction was absolutely necessary. I was wrong however. As the Senate currently stands, having only 7 seats due to two vacancies, I now notice the harm that such a reduction would cause to the general debating process of this chamber.

I believe that this term for the Senate has had an awful start, and has been fairly inactive when compared to previous terms. Of course, there are many reasons to this, most notably the nominations we now have to deal with, seeing as those usually tend to have less debate anyways. A contributing factor however, is the two vacancies we have had pretty much ever since this Senate was inaugurated. Less senators means less debate, this is a fact known for a long time, the Senate also used to be inactive way back when this region was founded and it only had 5 seats due the region having much smaller population. With the region having remained on a stable number of around 340~ to 370~ nations for the past few months however, I think it's silly to consider a move which will make politics worse at a time where population has remained stable.

I'll be voting nay to the motion.

Islonia, Toerana V

I can understand Cerd’s point, and it is concerning, however I do think that there are a number of other reasons for less activity in the Senate this term. One of the reasons is the fact that many bills and confirmations that have entered the Senate have been of a very good standard, and really there has been no point to a debate, and we’ve seen this countless times, so I don’t think that just blaming the Senate size for inactivity doesn’t show the whole picture.

That being said, I generally support the motion, as I feel that it makes elections more competitive, and makes the distinction between the Senate and the House more explicit, as at the moment, there is only a difference of 2 seats. I plan to vote aye, based on the last Senate election, and the current trend of newcomers who could potentially run for the Senate. We have to be wary about activity, like Cerd pointed out, however I don’t think that size is the main problem, and so we just need to be wary and aware of the potential activity situation. I plan to vote aye unless I am persuaded to vote otherwise.

Islonia, Dendrobium

Didn't we have to vote on debating the motion first?

Regardless, I proposed this to end the stupid deadlock between the House and Senate that is plaguing our region with just endless and needless toxicity. If you wanna vote Nay on this one because you disagree based on policy- that's fine by me. Just wanted to say for the record this was only proposed because something had to be done.

If this passes, great. If it doesn't, then there's no need for any more arguments about it. Personally I encourage an Aye vote on the motion, but honestly, at this rate, I don't really care.

Dendrobium

[spoiler=Brototh]

Technically yes, but last time something similar happened and the pre-first-vote stage was then regarded as a debate on how to vote on the motion's acceptance-to-debate vote. Confusing and probably unnnecessary, yes, but I suppose we will just roll with it.[/spoiler]

Personally I do not agree with the statement that a reduction to seven seats will somehow be catastrophic to the activity and quality of Senate business. As mentioned, a lot of bills brought before this chamber recently have simply been of good quality and could count on near-unanimous support of Senators. Besides that, the reasoning that more people equals more activity is clearly flawed, for which I refer to the House of Commons, which rarely reaches contribution of more that three out of eleven members. So taking a comparison with that, and the actual fact that we have recently been quite busy with nominations/confirmation in mind, it is safe to say a reduction would not be harmful to the productivity and work delivered by the Senate. So, to conclude, unless if one does not favor a reduction out of ideological beliefs, there is no reason to oppose this motion.

Dendrobium wrote:Technically yes, but last time something similar happened and the pre-first-vote stage was then regarded as a debate on how to vote on the motion's acceptance-to-debate vote. Confusing and probably unnnecessary, yes, but I suppose we will just roll with it.

Take a shot every time Dendro says vote and debate

Pap Sculgief, Dendrobium

Senators, we have begun voting on whether to advance the Motion to Reduce the Senate - April 2021.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1532189

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Antenion (IND)

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

Senators, we have begun the final debate on the Motion to Reduce the Senate - April 2021.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1532189

[spoiler=Senators]

Antenion (IND)

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

Dendrobium

Senators, we have begun the final vote on the Motion to Reduce the Senate - April 2021.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1532189

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Antenion (IND)

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

Reject Reduction, return to democracy

Nay

Aye, reduction is necessary for a more competitive Senate at election time, and I feel that the effects of reduction are being over-exaggerated

Results:

Aye (5) Ashlawn Antenion Dendrobium Ermica Pap Sculgief

Nay (2) Cerdenia Toerana V

Abstain (0)

The motion has passed and will be sent to the House.

[spoiler=Speaker]

Marvinville[/spoiler]

Senators, we have begun the confirmation hearing of Antenion for Culture Minister

Hello fellow Senators!

If you don't know me, I am Antenion, I have served in various positions here in this government, some includes being MP and even Speaker of the House, Senator, and of course, Culture Minister of Thaecia. Throughout my last tenure as Culture Minister, I lead the CM with a guiding hand and ultimately lead the Culture Ministry into success for the goals it was achieving. Starting the push for more frequent game nights, Formalizing Hunger Games, and more recently aiding in the creation of the Community Minecraft server as Acting Culture Minister.

If confirmed, I do want to push for more ambitious things in the hopes that I can make the CM as it is advertised to be, A shining beacon where you can help Thaecia in the many activities that are planned, and I am here to detail some of the ideas I have, and ways I could get to them. And that starts with the structure itself, with my tenure in the CM hope to reorganize the CM as a place where people can put their ideas for ways Thaecians can Have fun and get active in the CM.

Another thing I want to do is ensure that while smaller activities, like Game Nights, Hunger Games are ensured. I do also want to include some more major projects in there that might take up more time and resources. Such as an Awards thing (not equivalent to the Order of Thaeica) and weekly themed events are made, though I do want to lower the frequency of it.

That is all the time I have to make this post, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Thank you for reading this!

-Antenion

Ashlawn, Indian Genius

While the nominee is certainly qualified, I question the need for the Culture Ministry to even exist in the first place. We are going to lose another senator and deal with by-elections again because we are appointing a minister who isn't even required to exist.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the Senator to instead be given a deparment position under the PM? I really believe it would.

Cerdenia wrote:While the nominee is certainly qualified, I question the need for the Culture Ministry to even exist in the first place. We are going to lose another senator and deal with by-elections again because we are appointing a minister who isn't even required to exist.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the Senator to instead be given a department position under the PM? I really believe it would.

Imma make this argument short, basically, I don't wanna do the work of the Culture Minister and the Senator at the same time. Because without a doubt dealing with the bickering of legislators and dealing with your own realm is very unnesscessary

With the previous motion most likely going to pass both Chambers and the refermendum, I do not think a Senator leaving to take up a postion as CM will have a huge impact on the Senate itself. Furthermore, I do honestly believe the candidate is very much so qualified for the job. A job for a position that does in fact need to exist, in my opinion. While not constitutionally required, the CM is probably the most essential and active minister for the internal community of Thaecia; organizing events left and right, bringing people together, and being responsible for what this entire community is about: having fun. So in that regard the CM is in fact a requirement. Saying it is not is, while not technically wrong, very untrue.

Ashlawn, Pap Sculgief, Antenion, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Swearing in of Senators;

Congratulations to all Senators-elect! Here's to a great term and a wonderful journey where your time takes you!

Senators-elect, please take the following oath to be inaugurated into the chamber:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

[spoiler=Senators-elect]Emazia (IND)

Sevae (IND)

[/spoiler]

- Aremntieux

Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia

Taungu, Emazia, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Dendrobium

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Taungu, Antenion, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Dendrobium

I support the nominee, he's clearly qualified and has shown that time and time again

I do have one question: I know IG did a lot of controversial and cringe things in his time as Minister, including one that got him warned, very often changing the WFE, and putting disputed "facts" there - but there also was a sort of activity boom within the ministry.

So my question is: Which positive and negative takeaways have you got from IG's part of term (apart from the obvious "don't post cringe things and don't get banned")?

Sevae wrote:I support the nominee, he's clearly qualified and has shown that time and time again

I do have one question: I know IG did a lot of controversial and cringe things in his time as Minister, including one that got him warned, very often changing the WFE, and putting disputed "facts" there - but there also was a sort of activity boom within the ministry.

So my question is: Which positive and negative takeaways have you got from IG's part of term (apart from the obvious "don't post cringe things and don't get banned")?

For what their issues with the CM, there is something that he did have that my CM lacked, clear structure and Organization.

Armentieux wrote:Swearing in of Senators;

Congratulations to all Senators-elect! Here's to a great term and a wonderful journey where your time takes you!

Senators-elect, please take the following oath to be inaugurated into the chamber:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

[spoiler=Senators-elect]Emazia (IND)

[/spoiler]

- Aremntieux

Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of Thaecia against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Taungu, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Dendrobium, Armentieux

Senators, we have begun voting on the nomination of Antenion for Culture Minister.

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Antenion (IND)

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (IND)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Sevae (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

I didn't have the time to write a statement, but before I register my vote I just want to say I'm proud to be voting here today, both as a Senator and as someone who has the ability to give my good friend Antenion the ability to serve his region as he has dutifully done before.

Aye.

Ashlawn

Abstain (Cuz its my own confirmation)

Time to indulge in my inner pirate again

Aye!

Ashlawn Can I do my resignation speech now? (AKA close the vote)

Results:

Aye (7) Ashlawn Dendrobium Emazia Ermica Pap Sculgief Sevae Toerana V

Nay (0)

Abstain (2) Antenion Cerdenia

Antenion has been confirmed as Culture Minister.

Senators, we have begun debate on the Congressional Expansion/Reduction Constitutional Amendment.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1514661

Support, I'm all for simplifying our laws and this is a step towards that

Marvinville

This is a completely pointless amendment. Against

Let's be real, this doesn't deserve its own amendment.

I can see why some would prefer the legislation system over the motion system, but after having just passed the reduction people were "begging" to happen I think we can all agree that it won't be happening again anytime in the near future. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it just doesn't deserve its own amendment, we can adress this is in a constitutional convention, which is likely to happen in the near future.

I ask the Chair that we move on to more important matters.

Indian Genius, Toerana V

Senators, we have begun voting on the Congressional Expansion/Reduction Constitutional Amendment.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1514661

Aye

[spoiler=Senators]

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (IND)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Sevae (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

Marvinville

Aye

Marvinville

Congrats to the chairman on an entire day lost debating + voting on this, with some more hours to come.

Aye, wasn't able to vote yesterday sorry for the holdup.

Marvinville

Results:

Aye (5) Ashlawn Emazia Ermica Pap Sculgief Sevae

Nay (2) Cerdenia Toerana V

Abstain (1) Dendrobium

The Amendment has passed.

[spoiler=EC]

Armentieux[/spoiler]

Senators, we have begun debate on The Electoral Commission Act of 2021.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1521395

Marvinville, Armentieux

Let me go through this bill section by section:

Article 1:

Marvinville, what happens if the indictment/removal from office is overturned and it turns out that, for whatever reason, the evidence seems to have been miscalculated. Would they be re-eligible for office again? Furthermore, what does it mean to "participate" in an election process? As it doesn't seem to be defined, does that mean that the EC can't run for election or that they can be a candidate but can't exercise their power during that period? Shouldn't this be at least clarified? Also, what if the Deputy EC is also running in that election?

Article 2:

Why the difference between the PM/Presidential and Congressional elections? Why is it "no later" rather than "no earlier"? Wouldn't this allow the EC to simply end the CDP extremely early? Also, why 3 days? And why any maximum latest date at all? "If possible" - does that mean it is up to the judgement of the EC?

Article 3:

I don't see any problems here.

Article 4:

Are abstain votes just not counted as votes at all? If so, then why should people vote abstain rather than simply not voting? Regarding the 50%+1 requirement, while there may be some sort of court precedent proving me wrong here, is it not the case that this may end up creating problematic situations. For example, 50% of the Senate is 4.5 people. 50%+1 would be 5.5, rounded up to 6. This means that 2/3rds of the Senate would be required for a speaker. I understand that in larger chambers, such as those used IRL, where I assume this was taken from, this is less of a problem (a chamber with 500 legislators would have this requirement be 251, and be a mere 50.2% rather than the 66.7% here in the Senate.), so I do hope this will be rectified or that I will at least be pointed to a precedent where 50%+1 is mentioned to mean, in effect, 50% in a system where there are an even number of voters (seeing as abstentions are treated as non-existent) or a simple rounding up in a system where there are an odd number of voters.

Articles 5 and 6:

Both alright to me.

After the answer to this is given, I will make an amendment with all my remaining problems to be solved.

Onto the next thing for the Senate to rubber stamp I suppose. One day we'll read what we pass.

Speaking of which:

Article I

Article I, Section IV's opening statement state that if the electoral commissioner breaks the law they "may be liable to be impeached by Congress." Imo, it should be much more upfront

Section IV, Sub-Section I - Do we now have the process for impeach defined anywhere else? Surely this is not a unique process and we can just reference the method for impeachment in the constitution.

Changing Subsection I to:

"The Electoral Commissioner may be impeached in the manner proscribed by the Presidential Impeachment, in Article I, Section VIII, Sub-Section I in the Constitution. Upon the successful impeachment of the Electoral Commissioner, the deputy Electoral Commissioner shall serve as Acting Commissioner until until a new Electoral Commissioner has been confirmed by the House of Commons."

Drifting off-topic, Impeachment in the constitution needs to be simplified so this can be done in the future. All the impeachment Sub-Sections are nearly identical, and could easily be condensed into a single piece for easier, worry free referencing.

Sub-Section II: I dislike the blocking for life idea, given an Impeachable offense isn't clearly defined in this act. Particularly the "suspect" part. I think that Banned for life should be on option on the table, but that Congress and the Court should be more flexible with the punishment given, or rather, the court should give the punishment, not have the Near-Nuclear Option handed to them off the bat.

Article II

The opening line references the constitution, which furthers my previous point about Impeachment

Section I: No problems, although I skimmed through this part. I'm not entirely sure how elections run behind the scenes here and voting methods used, so I'll let someone else make sure this act isn't trying to slide in a change to the voting system under our noses.

Section II: Don't give the election a name. If the populous wishes to address the 4-Month Elections as the "General Election" then they can, but there's no reason to define that in the law itself. Scrap it. Likewise for the "midterms." It's a horrible attempt to mix British/American terminology for elections and it should be removed entirely to give Thaecia a clean slate to build off of terminology wise.

Moving onto the important parts, I believe that the Day the election is supposed to start on should be legally defined, as to not give the Electoral Commission literally an entire month to hold an election. That will result in inconsistency in term lengths if handed poorly, and that is not something we want.

I'll propose a simple amendment to fix this inconsistency issue. The date is currently just a placeholder, but I'm happy for it to start on the 3rd:

From:

"Section II - Elections for the President, Prime Ministry, and Senate will take place every four months in the General election, which shall be held in the months of March, July, and November. Elections for the House of Commons will take place every two months, in the Midterm and General elections. These elections shall be held in the months of January, March, May, July, September, and November. "

To

"Section II - Elections for the President, Prime Ministry, and Senate will take place every four months, which shall start on the 3rd day of the months of March, July, and November. Elections for the House of Commons will take place every two months. These elections start on the 3rd day of the months of January, March, May, July, September, and November."

It does the same thing, just mandates a start time and helps everything to slot in logically, so Thaecians know when to expect things to start/end.

No, it isn't time specific and still gives the EC a day's worth of lee-way. That should be enough time to open noms.

Sub-Section I: Seriously, we're defining it against other days in the future that aren't legally defined and are legally allowing the EC to close nominations "early"??? Seriously people? You trust your system way too much.

If you want it to last for 7 Days, say it.

I think a 7 day Noms period is a tad excessive, so my amendment to this has proposed 5 days.

It should be changed from this:

"The Candidacy Election Period should end no later than 7 days prior to election day, which is to be determined by the Electoral Commissioner"

To This:

"The Candidacy Election Period will end 5 days after the beginning of the Election."

Paired with the prior amendment, this simply would mean that the Election starts on the 3rd, and the Noms close on the 8th. Easy to follow, easy to understand.

Section III: Okay People, so we define this silly inauguration day where we take a meaningless oath, but we don't define the days the election is supposed to be held on. Ya'll are inconsistent as hell i stg.

Firstly, scrap Inauguration. It's a silly Americanism that should be scrapped and just gets in the way of the Legislative doing its job. It does nothing but slow down the start of a new term, and for the short 2 month terms of the House this is a necessity to scrap. Last thing we need is some inactive candidate not being inaugurated for a week so the house looses 1/8th of its entire term time. That's not time that can be lost when the Legislative has stuff to do.

Onto Proposals:

Merge Sections II and III, with the removal of Inauguration, you can keep all of the election process stuff in a single section for simplification.

My Proposal has it read as follows:

"Sub-Section II -The Voting period shall start 5 days from the beginning of the election, after the end of the Candidacy Election Period, and shall last for 72 Hours. Any ballots submitted 72 Hours after start of the Voting Period shall be discarded."

No more second guessing of "oh does this one last for 72 hours, or is it 75 hours, or what?" The ending sentence also covers if the fact that the EC won't be bang on exact, and that's fine. This still gives the EC the leeway it needs to do its job, while not giving it the legal powers to significantly change the timings of the election.

"Sub-Section III - After the end of the Voting Period, the High Court may take up to 3 days to verify the results. Upon Verification by the High Court, the elected officials will immediately assume their elected positions, as per the verified results."

This still gives the court 3 days to verify the results

"Sub-Section IV - Should the High Court exceed this time limit purposefully to subvert democracy or due to negligence, this may be grounds for impeachment. If they exceed this time limit because the election results are illegitimate, results may be recounted or a new election must be held."

I'm fine with this as it is, although it doesn't cover what happens if the court just doesn't do anything, can the EC go over their head if they fail to respond? I genuinely don't have an answer to that, so that's up for someone else to decide.

Section IV: Nononononononono. Snap elections are not grounds to through out predefined procedures, they are elections in their own right. Also, this is the only time a "snap" election is referenced, they are referenced as "special elections" everywhere else. Some consistency would be nice. I propose merging Sections IV and V, renaming it to "Section III" for consistency reasons, and changing it to this:

(The proposal will be the section in full, no commentary in-between)

"Section IV - The Electoral Commissioner shall be obligated to hold a special election if a vacancy occurs within the positions of President, Prime Minister, Senate, and House of Commons.

Sub-Section I: Special elections will follow the same procedures defined in Section II

Sub-Section II. Should a vacancy occur in the Senate or House of Commons in the 21 days before a Senate or House of Commons election, the Electoral Commissioner shall not be allowed to initiate a special election for the vacant seat.

Sub-Section III. Should a vacancy occur in the office of President or Prime Ministry in the 28 days before a Presidential or Prime Minister election, the Electoral Commissioner shall not be allowed to initiate a by-election for the vacant seat"

Only Major changes for I and II (now II and III) was changing "By-Election" to "Special Election."

"By-Election" was the third different term used for the same thing in this section alone. God forbid I have to do this to standardize the entire piece of legislation.

Section VI: Scrap it. No need to make elections shorter because it's not a regularly scheduled one.

Section VII: Rename to Section IV, for consistency.

Scrap Sub-Section II - No reason to delay a vote because there is an election soon, it only slows down the legislative process and overwhelms Thaecians when they have to elect 2 entire Legislative branches, their entire executive, and then vote on whether they should pass this major change in the region's legislature. No one can seriously expect a casual Thaecian to do all of that within 72 hours.

Sub-Section III: Rename to II, as per previous proposal, change "General of Midterm" to "Regularly Scheduled"

Rename Sub-Section IV to III

Rename Sub-Section V to IV.

Consistency for those two.

Article III

I've been doing this for about 40-45 minutes now, I hope these are nicer lmao.

I actually have no issue with this one

Article IV

Scrap it, Inauguration is dumb and a waste of time. Already said this.

Article V

Renumber to become "Article IV" - Consistency.

Section I:

Sub-Section I:

Rewrite from:

"The standing period must begin by at most 48 hours after a vacancy in the leadership position, or after the swearing-in of legislators end. It should end after no later than 24 hours, or after each legislator in their chamber has declared their intent or non-intent to stand, whichever comes first."

To:

"The standing period must begin by at most 24 hours after a vacancy in the leadership position, or after the verification of the votes by the High Court. It should end after no later than 24 hours, or after each legislator in their chamber has declared their intent or non-intent to stand."

Sub-Section II:

"II. Should a vacancy occur before the upcoming Senate or House of Commons election, any current business in that chamber shall be tabled to a later date until the next Chair/Speaker is elected."

There is always an "Upcoming" Election. Scrap it.

No Issue with the rest of the Article

Article VI

Renumber to Article V, as per my previous recommendations

No Problems.

Article VII

Renumber to Article VI, as per my previous recommendations

I can't really dispute this haha - No Issues

------------------------------------------------------------------

Closing Notes

I'm a bit of a mess when it comes to critiques, I write as I think, so it can vary. I will provide the chair with a comprehensive set of proposed amendments, as some only make sense with the others, and changes I wish to propose for the Senate to vote on within the next 24 Hours, on this RMB, but hopefully sooner.

Personally, I have lots of issues with the current wording of the act, lots of leeway given to the EC which gives them pretty incredible election manipulation powers, power that is simply unnecessary to give. Inaugurations are a waste of time and an outdated "Americanism." The Oath is meaningless, and has literally no legal weight (afaik) in Thaecia. To give it some would be anti-democratic, to keep it would continue to waste the time of Congress, and the Executive.

I have spent on hour on this, please at least read this post this time.

Hulldom, Emazia

Toerana V wrote:[...]

Section II: Don't give the election a name. If the populous wishes to address the 4-Month Elections as the "General Election" then they can, but there's no reason to define that in the law itself. Scrap it. Likewise for the "midterms." It's a horrible attempt to mix British/American terminology for elections and it should be removed entirely to give Thaecia a clean slate to build off of terminology wise.

[...]

Section III: Okay People, so we define this silly inauguration day where we take a meaningless oath, but we don't define the days the election is supposed to be held on. Ya'll are inconsistent as hell i stg.

Firstly, scrap Inauguration. It's a silly Americanism that should be scrapped and just gets in the way of the Legislative doing its job. It does nothing but slow down the start of a new term, and for the short 2 month terms of the House this is a necessity to scrap. Last thing we need is some inactive candidate not being inaugurated for a week so the house looses 1/8th of its entire term time. That's not time that can be lost when the Legislative has stuff to do.

[...]

Section IV: Nononononononono. Snap elections are not grounds to through out predefined procedures, they are elections in their own right. Also, this is the only time a "snap" election is referenced, they are referenced as "special elections" everywhere else. Some consistency would be nice.

You haven't read the Constitution of Thaecia in depth.

1) "The intern election to determine the chamber leader(s) shall be hosted by the Electoral Commission after the inauguration of the Congress representatives upon the conclusion of a general election and midterm election for the House of Commons"

The names of the elections are already predefined in the Constitution. If you disagree, go amend it out. It's good in my opinion to have them to distinguish the difference between when everyone is elected - House, Senate, PM, Pres - and when only the House is elected, but I'll resist to complaining that you haben't read the Constitution.

2) "The intern election to determine the chamber leader(s) shall be hosted by the Electoral Commission after the inauguration of the Congress representatives upon the conclusion of a general election and midterm election for the House of Commons"

Inauguration is directly referenced in the Constitution of Thaecia, as such it is a procedure that has to happen. You have also not read the bill, because you are talking about a meaningless oath, which does not even exist in the bill. In fact- the bill removes the very oath you are talking about and replaces it with a simple statement! If you have a problem with inaugurations as a whole you should remove that section from the constitution in your own amendment.

I'll give a suggestion- although this amendment that removed the oath barely passed the House, so I wouldn't recommend it- just replace inaugurations as "inaugurations shall happen immediately as election results are announced" or something. I like having "inaugurations" as a thing, because it defines when the actual entering the office occurs, as to remove any accidents.

More of a fault with the actual bill:

3) "Section V - Should a Congressperson be recalled or resign, a Snap Election shall be held to fill the vacant seat."

"Section II - Elections for the House shall be every two months; elections for the Senate, Prime Ministry and Presidency shall be scheduled for every four months, regardless of if a snap election takes place."

No such thing as a special election actually exists in the Thaecian constitution- they're all called snap elections. The bill is trying to distinguish the difference -which I significantly agree with, and I think this is a problem in the Constitution that it's only called snaps. Regardless, snap elections are defined in the Constitution, and as such it would make much more sense to rename all mentions of special election to snap election. Afterwards we can amend the issue in the constitutional convention.

As such I suggest you withdraw any amendments you might've made there and redo them.

Side note:

Please file your amendments all in individual spoilers like everyone else does. It took me a hard time to find what amendments you're trying to make and I'm still unsure about most of them. I respect there's no official procedure to file an amendment but for everyone's sake- the authors, the Senators, and the general public- please do it like everyone else has done for the past two years.

Emazia wrote:

Article 1:

Marvinville, what happens if the indictment/removal from office is overturned and it turns out that, for whatever reason, the evidence seems to have been miscalculated. Would they be re-eligible for office again? Furthermore, what does it mean to "participate" in an election process? As it doesn't seem to be defined, does that mean that the EC can't run for election or that they can be a candidate but can't exercise their power during that period? Shouldn't this be at least clarified? Also, what if the Deputy EC is also running in that election?

The goal of impeachment is to remove someone from office, as in this case, would be the EC. It describes no way for it to be overturned since it needs support from both chambers of Congress as well as the Court, and if that is the case, then the person shall not continue serving in that office. They would not be eligible to hold the position of EC ever again. To "participate" means that they can not control any part of the election process that they are a candidate in. It would be an issue if the Deputy EC would be running in the election, but I suppose that the Deputy EC could be dismissed and a new one can be hired to run the election.

Emazia wrote:Article 2:

Why the difference between the PM/Presidential and Congressional elections? Why is it "no later" rather than "no earlier"? Wouldn't this allow the EC to simply end the CDP extremely early? Also, why 3 days? And why any maximum latest date at all? "If possible" - does that mean it is up to the judgement of the EC?

Not sure what your seeing relating to difference between PM/Presidential and Congressional elections. "no later" because that is how it is in its current form in L.R. 022 I believe (I may be wrong tho). 3 days for what? If this is for election period, it has always been around 3 days for genelecs and midterms. With the "If possible" question, I suppose you may be referring to the referendum within elections (may be wrong idk). This would ensure that the EC can include regional referendums with elections, which is very common, if they wish to. This would possibly reduce the amount of regional votes we need, by combining elections with regional referendum when they do happen. This also applies to special elections as well.

Emazia wrote:Article 4:

Are abstain votes just not counted as votes at all? If so, then why should people vote abstain rather than simply not voting? Regarding the 50%+1 requirement, while there may be some sort of court precedent proving me wrong here, is it not the case that this may end up creating problematic situations. For example, 50% of the Senate is 4.5 people. 50%+1 would be 5.5, rounded up to 6. This means that 2/3rds of the Senate would be required for a speaker. I understand that in larger chambers, such as those used IRL, where I assume this was taken from, this is less of a problem (a chamber with 500 legislators would have this requirement be 251, and be a mere 50.2% rather than the 66.7% here in the Senate.), so I do hope this will be rectified or that I will at least be pointed to a precedent where 50%+1 is mentioned to mean, in effect, 50% in a system where there are an even number of voters (seeing as abstentions are treated as non-existent) or a simple rounding up in a system where there are an odd number of voters.

Abstain is both defined by L.R. 024 and L.R. 037 as being counted towards the total amount of votes cast. You can find relevant info on "Abstain" vote in said laws.

Additionally, the Constitution defines 50%+1 as being a simple majority vote.

Emazia

This bill is ultimately pretty good and an improvement on what we currently have, however a lot of things in the bill are very redundant, as they are already defined by the Constitution and shouldn't be mentioned in the law at all. Article VI itself is completely pointless, as the Constitution already protects the right to "Personal Privacy".

This by itself isn't a big deal though. I do have one main issue with this law which should definitely be changed, which is Article III Section I:

"The High Court of Thaecia, by a unanimous vote of the Justices who vote in any decision on verification, shall verify the results of regional elections and referenda."

I've already talked about this before, and I believe it has a chance of causing issues in the future, with one justice being able to hold the entire court back. So yeah overall I think this is bad, so I will be submitting the following amendment, pretty simple:

"The High Court of Thaecia, by a unanimous vote two-thirds majority vote of the Justices who vote in any decision on verification, shall verify the results of regional elections and referenda."

Emazia, Armentieux

Marvinville wrote:The goal of impeachment is to remove someone from office, as in this case, would be the EC. It describes no way for it to be overturned since it needs support from both chambers of Congress as well as the Court, and if that is the case, then the person shall not continue serving in that office. They would not be eligible to hold the position of EC ever again. To "participate" means that they can not control any part of the election process that they are a candidate in. It would be an issue if the Deputy EC would be running in the election, but I suppose that the Deputy EC could be dismissed and a new one can be hired to run the election.

Not sure what your seeing relating to difference between PM/Presidential and Congressional elections. "no later" because that is how it is in its current form in L.R. 022 I believe (I may be wrong tho). 3 days for what? If this is for election period, it has always been around 3 days for genelecs and midterms. With the "If possible" question, I suppose you may be referring to the referendum within elections (may be wrong idk). This would ensure that the EC can include regional referendums with elections, which is very common, if they wish to. This would possibly reduce the amount of regional votes we need, by combining elections with regional referendum when they do happen. This also applies to special elections as well.

Abstain is both defined by L.R. 024 and L.R. 037 as being counted towards the total amount of votes cast. You can find relevant info on "Abstain" vote in said laws.

Additionally, the Constitution defines 50%+1 as being a simple majority vote.

First, thank you for your response, and thank you for doing it so quickly. The parts in bold are the parts that I'm personally happy with, and won't be proposing any sort of amendments on those things. I'll address the parts not in bold, in the order that they were written.

So, first. Wouldn't it be better if we had one of the AECs take charge instead, in order of seniority?

Second, I was referring to the 21/28 day difference. Is there a reason for that being in the bill?

Third, yes, I was. I do agree with the last point in that paragraph (in bold). Do you believe that giving the EC direct power to schedule it "if possible" on the same ballot as a general/midterm election is a better alternative than legislating a certain amount of time before an election where, if a constitutional amendment is passed, it would automatically ensure the EC puts it on that ballot by law? Or do you believe that Article II, Section VII, Subsection III, already is that in effect?

That's all I have to say for now, thank you for your answers and the quick response once again.

Senators, the above bill has been tabled and we have begun debate on the Constitutional Convention Act.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1531317

[spoiler=Senators]

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (IND)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Sevae (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

Toerana V, Emazia, Armentieux

Looks pretty good to me. Not much I have to say about this one.

better than nothing

Questions, notes and maybe Amendments coming Soon™. (Currently don't have the time for it though, so I ask the Chair waits with starting the vote until then.)

As promised:

To already give an idea of what my takes will be about: from my point of view this bill leaves room for a lot of unclarities and confusion, but also some, In my opinion, odd choices. I will mostly list my thoughts in the same order as used in the bill itself.

A1.1: While not necessarily incomplete, this part simply states Congress can pass a motion and then start a convention. Obviously this insinuates for the motion to be a motion meant to start the convention, but nowhere is this stated. Because of that, this motion could quite literally be just about anything. To avoid confusion and loopholes this should be specified.

A1.2 and most of A3: Section 2 of Article 1 states that "Members of both legislative chambers shall separately elect a Convention Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson [...]." Again, insinuation and intention differ, but this time the other way around. Judging by later parts in the bill, I can only assume this Section means to say both Chambers conclude on a single Chair and several (?) Deputy Chairs. Stressing on assume. However, logically speaking, with the way A1.2 is phrased, each Chamber on it's own would elect a Chair, of which only one is eventually chosen in the end. Again, I have to assume the last part, since the rest speaks only of a Chair in singular form. This process should be clarified.

A2.1: The only remark here is that, and apologies for my repetitiveness, this part should be specified. This for the simple reason that it is an exceptionally important part of the bill, by how much it is referenced elsewhere.

A3.3: Another loophole. With the phrasing used, this could also mean, depending on interpretation, which is left very open, that the Deputies themselves and not the Chair personally choose when to take over. I view this simply as something gone unnoticed, but if not, leaving this authority to the Deputies is an odd choice to say the least.

A4 as a whole: This entire part of the bill is very confusing and unclear. I personally think it would be best if parts of this were entirely re-written, but this bill will most likely pass either way, so lets try to solve some issues. Firstly, the timeframes set out are weird. only 12 hours of debate and up to 3 entire days of voting time? That's just rediculous to me if we are being honest. 24 hours should be the bare minimum for a debate as important and large as this. Next, Section 1 speaks of several, seperate, public channels. What does this mean? Will the convention be held on NS, and if so on which RMB? Will it be held on Discord, and if so who will set the server up, or will it be done in Thaecord? I do not know the intentions of the authors here, so I can't give suggestions on how to fix this, other than asking to specify. Thirdly, what in the world does "If the Chairperson or Deputy lose their seat as a Senator/Member of Parliament for X [...]" mean? X? I understand that people losing their seat can't remain to be a formal member of a convention exclusively for Legislators, but this entire Section right now makes little sense.

I am being very critical here, but please don't misunderstand me. As said previously, I think a bill like this is good. There are, I believe, some flaws in the idea behind it inherently, like making it a Legislative-exclusive occasion, and there are certainly some internal flaws of teh bill I laid out here; but in the end, it is a bill that will be good to have around, whether it will be used soon, late, only once, never, or many times.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Changes Article 1 – Calling and Convening a Convention to say:

(1) Congress may convene a Constitutional Convention, where if a motion calling for the Constitutional Convention, requiring a which requires 2/3 supermajority support in each individual chamber, has passed both chambers.

(2) Members of both legislative chambers shall separately elect a single Convention Chairperson Candidate and Deputy Chairperson by a vote organised by the Electoral Commission using the immediate runoff voting system. They must serve unless they resign, or are removed.

(3) Convention Chairperson Candidates can be anyone in either Chamber of Congress, and once both Chambers have come to a conclusion on their respective Candidate, another vote by the same standards will decide on which one of the two will be the Conventional Chairperson or Deputy Conventional Chairperson.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Changes Article 2 – Member of the Convention, Section 1 to say:

(1) Members of a legislative chamber hold the right for full participation in formal membership of the Convention; meaning the right to fully participate in all official Convention debates and votes.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Changes Article 3 – Powers of the Chair and Deputy Chairpersons, Section 3 to say:

Any power the Chairperson holds may be delegated to any deputies their Deputy Chairperson as they see fit seen fit by the Chairperson.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Changes Article 4 - Fundamental Procedures of the Convention, Section 3 to say:

All amendments are entitled to a minimum of 12 24 hours of debate. They are also entitled to a minimum of 24 hours of vote.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Changes Changes Article 4 - Fundamental Procedures of the Convention, Section 6 to say:

If the Chairperson or Deputy loses their seat as a Senator/Member of Parliament for X during the Convention, a vote shall be held for that position as per Art(1)(2) specified in Article 1. Should any other official member of the Convention as specified in Article 2 lose their seat during the Convention, that seat will remain vacant until a Snap Election is held for that seat. Senators or Members of Parliament elected in a Snap Election during the Convention shall be allowed to be formal members of the Convention.

[/spoiler]

Cerdenia

Dendrobium wrote:[spoiler=Amendment A]

Changes Article 1 – Calling and Convening a Convention to say:

(1) Congress may convene a Constitutional Convention, where if a motion calling for the Constitutional Convention, requiring a which requires 2/3 supermajority support in each individual chamber, has passed both chambers.

(2) Members of both legislative chambers shall separately elect a single Convention Chairperson Candidate and Deputy Chairperson by a vote organised by the Electoral Commission using the immediate runoff voting system. They must serve unless they resign, or are removed.

(3) Convention Chairperson Candidates can be anyone in either Chamber of congress, and once both Chambers have come to a conclusion on their respective Candidate, another vote by the same standards will decide on which one of the two will be the Conventional Chairperson or Deputy Conventional Chairperson.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Changes Article 2 – Member of the Convention, Section 1 to say:

(1) Members of a legislative chamber hold the right for full participation in formal membership of the Convention; meaning the right to fully participate in all official Convention debates and votes.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Changes Article 3 – Powers of the Chair and Deputy Chairpersons, Section 3 to say:

Any power the Chairperson holds may be delegated to any deputies their Deputy Chairperson as they see fit seen fit by the Chairperson.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Changes Article 4 - Fundamental Procedures of the Convention, Section 3 to say:

All amendments are entitled to a minimum of 12 24 hours of debate. They are also entitled to a minimum of 24 hours of vote.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Changes Changes Article 4 - Fundamental Procedures of the Convention, Section 6 to say:

If the Chairperson or Deputy loses their seat as a Senator/Member of Parliament for X during the Convention, a vote shall be held for that position as per Art(1)(2) specified in Article 1. Should any other official member of the Convention as specified in Article 2 lose their seat during the Convention, that seat will remain vacant until a Snap Election is held for that seat. Senators or Members of Parliament elected in a Snap Election during the Convention shall be allowed to be formal members of the Convention.

[/spoiler]

Full support all amendments, a bit wordy but I think it gets the point across-the-board capitalise Congress in amendment A tho pls my perfectionism :((

Dendrobium

Brototh wrote:capitalise Congress in amendment A tho pls my perfectionism :((

never ;)

Brototh

Senators, we have begun voting on the following amendments to the Constitutional Convention Act.

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Changes Article 1 – Calling and Convening a Convention to say:

(1) Congress may convene a Constitutional Convention, where if a motion calling for the Constitutional Convention, requiring a which requires 2/3 supermajority support in each individual chamber, has passed both chambers.

(2) Members of both legislative chambers shall separately elect a single Convention Chairperson Candidate and Deputy Chairperson by a vote organised by the Electoral Commission using the immediate runoff voting system. They must serve unless they resign, or are removed.

(3) Convention Chairperson Candidates can be anyone in either Chamber of Congress, and once both Chambers have come to a conclusion on their respective Candidate, another vote by the same standards will decide on which one of the two will be the Conventional Chairperson or Deputy Conventional Chairperson.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Changes Article 2 – Member of the Convention, Section 1 to say:

(1) Members of a legislative chamber hold the right for full participation in formal membership of the Convention; meaning the right to fully participate in all official Convention debates and votes.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Changes Article 3 – Powers of the Chair and Deputy Chairpersons, Section 3 to say:

Any power the Chairperson holds may be delegated to any deputies their Deputy Chairperson as they see fit seen fit by the Chairperson.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Changes Article 4 - Fundamental Procedures of the Convention, Section 3 to say:

All amendments are entitled to a minimum of 12 24 hours of debate. They are also entitled to a minimum of 24 hours of vote.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment E]

Changes Changes Article 4 - Fundamental Procedures of the Convention, Section 6 to say:

If the Chairperson or Deputy loses their seat as a Senator/Member of Parliament for X during the Convention, a vote shall be held for that position as per Art(1)(2) specified in Article 1. Should any other official member of the Convention as specified in Article 2 lose their seat during the Convention, that seat will remain vacant until a Snap Election is held for that seat. Senators or Members of Parliament elected in a Snap Election during the Convention shall be allowed to be formal members of the Convention.[/spoiler]

Aye to All

[spoiler=Senators]

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (IND)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Sevae (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

A: Aye

B: Aye

C: Aye

D: Aye

E: Aye

All amendments provide better wording and clarification that improve the bill.

Aye to all

Senators, all Amendments have passed. With permission of the Chair, we have begun voting on the final bill as amended.

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=dendrobium/detail=factbook/id=1536182

My vote is Aye.

[spoiler=Senators]

Ashlawn (IND)

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (IND)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Sevae (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

Aye

Sorry, caught up with rl stuff recently >_>

we gonna move on or what

Results

Aye: Ashlawn, Cerdenia, Dendrobium, Emazia, Ermica, Pap Sculgief, Sevae, Toerana V

Nay: none

Abstain: none

The above bill has passed and is hereby passed onto the House of Commons Marvinville.

Senators, we have nu begun the debate on Amendments to L.R. 23 by Hulldom, as per L.R. 037 the author has permission to use the RMB during this debate.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1427326

[spoiler=Senators]

Ashlawn (IND)

Cerdenia (IND)

Dendrobium (SOL)

Emazia (IND)

Ermica (TCU)

Pap Sculgief (IND)

Sevae (IND)

Toerana V (IND)[/spoiler]

Indian Genius

This seems fairly straightforward overall to me. It's a common sense change that allows you all to actually use your investigatory powers without running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Indian Genius

Hulldom

Seems like there is an issue with the Amendment to Article III, as section II reads that they may be prosecuted for violation of the "Thaecia Legal Code", an Act which has been repealed and replaced a while back, so must correct this.

Other than that it's a fine bill I guess, I'm not sure we will ever need to use this system, however it's not a bad thing to make it it slightly better either way.

Hulldom, Indian Genius

Cerdenia wrote:Hulldom

Seems like there is an issue with the Amendment to Article III, as section II reads that they may be prosecuted for violation of the "Thaecia Legal Code", an Act which has been repealed and replaced a while back, so must correct this.

Other than that it's a fine bill I guess, I'm not sure we will ever need to use this system, however it's not a bad thing to make it it slightly better either way.

I mentioned it to Ashlawn that someone would need to amend that out, but here's the formal language to get rid of: "If the subject of the investigation still refuses to hand over information, they may be prosecuted by the Justice Minister for a violation of Article IX of the Thaecia Legal Code (L.R. 008)"

Indian Genius

Hulldom wrote:I mentioned it to Ashlawn that someone would need to amend that out, but here's the formal language to get rid of: "If the subject of the investigation still refuses to hand over information, they may be prosecuted by the Justice Minister for a violation of Article IX of the Thaecia Legal Code (L.R. 008)"

Actually, this bill hasn't passed the House of Commons yet right? As such you can just amend it yourself, being the author of the bill.

Indian Genius

Cerdenia wrote:Actually, this bill hasn't passed the House of Commons yet right? As such you can just amend it yourself, being the author of the bill.

Oh, well then, will do.

Edit: Offending sentence removed.

Cerdenia, Indian Genius

It appears good now that Article III is fixed, so I don't really have anything to say.

Indian Genius

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.