Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

I will refrain myself from asking, as the Minister/Secretary already laid his plans and issue severe warnings or threats (if you'll allow it to be called that) for the RP to move forward.

Apologies for the slow proceedings Senators.

I believe Senator Andusre would like to pose some questions to the Secretary of Roleplay, so I will allow some more time for him to do so.

Andusre, Asean Nations

Hi, sorry for my tardiness. Had some family stuff to take care of. Here are my questions for Islonia:

Q1. What happened in the most recent 'explosion' of toxicity in the RP? What caused it?

Q2: How was the situation handled by the moderators?

Q3: Why have these events happened regularly in the history of the RP?

Q4: What measures are in place to stop these fights?

Q5. Are these measures actually working?

Q6: If they are not working, what do you plan on doing to prevent more toxicity?

Q7: The Thaecian government has always taken a fairly laissez-faire approach to its role-play. What reassurances, if any, can you give to convince the government that the lack of transparency the RP has thus far enjoyed should not be revoked?

Fishergate, Asean Nations

Andusre wrote:Q1. What happened in the most recent 'explosion' of toxicity in the RP? What caused it?

There wasn't an explosion in toxicity. Just a suspension of season 5b because we were undergoing changes to the timeline due to complaints of one side of the cold war being more powerful than the other one. Only United States Of Edingbridge showed signs of toxicity. ( https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/564090143024349194/701038699323850782/unknown.png )

Andusre wrote:Q2: How was the situation handled by the moderators?

USE was banned on the spot. He already showed toxicity and lack of self-control way too many times in the past for me to let him continue. Brototh prepared at my demand a compilation of his toxic or generally bad behaviour (it's not the full picture, there is way too much for us to compile it) in case you wonder why:

[spoiler=Enjoy]https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/564090143024349194/701038847458541624/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701038967901913088/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701039281321541732/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701039449282445372/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701039988866940968/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701040174918008892/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701040698954219650/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701040924452454470/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701041362484854824/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701041479442759740/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701041923766616105/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701042124589760512/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701042381524435004/unknown.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/701042711251386398/unknown.png

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/564090143024349194/701043251393593364/unknown.png

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/564090143024349194/698841442747154432/image0.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/698841442747154432/image0.png

One massive argument between lego & someone else:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733652369178735/image0.jpg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733652822294528/image1.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733653136736326/image2.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733653459828776/image3.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733653988311080/image4.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733653988311080/image4.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733654780903585/image6.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733655275962398/image7.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733656039194624/image8.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695733656253104231/image9.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734081861845072/image0.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734082142994502/image1.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734082612625428/image2.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734082943975535/image3.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734083208085675/image4.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734083489235065/image5.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734083749281902/image6.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734084135026783/image7.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734084537810974/image8.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734084793663498/image9.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734163151519824/image0.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734163503841351/image1.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/564090143024349194/695734163835322378/image2.png

[/spoiler]

Andusre wrote:Q3: Why have these events happened regularly in the history of the RP?

They generally happen because a person cannot control his/her feelings and decide to launch personal attacks instead of continuing to debate normally. This was shown by several people already.

Andusre wrote:Q4: What measures are in place to stop these fights?

Politics are banned in the rp server. People can't control themselves and respect other's opinion for more than 5 minutes before starting to personally attack someone, so they're not allowed to debate on such matters. If they want to, they'll have to do it in DMs.

Andusre wrote:Q5. Are these measures actually working?

Yes, except when people break the rule and start speaking politics.

Andusre wrote:Q6: If they are not working, what do you plan on doing to prevent more toxicity?

The usual tricks: muting, kicking or banning the person. Normally a warn is enough for them to stop though.

Andusre wrote:Q7: The Thaecian government has always taken a fairly laissez-faire approach to its role-play. What reassurances, if any, can you give to convince the government that the lack of transparency the RP has thus far enjoyed should not be revoked?

There's no lack of transparency, you just need to come and observe; something people generally don't. So, I hardly see how we could revoke it.

As for the laissez-faire, if anyone outside the Roleplay Administration (RPA) tries to interfere, it just won't work; people won't listen to this person/group. This being said, if you want to be convinced that the roleplay should stay as it is, you only have to join the server and watch what's going on. Toxicity is not as ubiquitous as you present it, and only occurs when a discussion becomes too heated, like everywhere else.

Brototh, Asean Nations, Zon Island

Thank you Secretary Islonia for your responses to Senator Andusre's questions.

If any Senators would like to ask the Secretary any further questions or challenge the responses he has given so far, please do so now.

If no Senator has made any further comment by tomorrow morning (in about 12 hours), we will move on to other business.

I have no comment.

HEARING CLOSED

Thank you to Roleplay Secretary Islonia for appearing in the Senate for this urgent hearing. I hope the Senators are satisfied with your responses to the questions.

The hearing is now over and we will move on to other business.

Zon Island

RESUMING DEBATE - SHADOW SPEAKER APPOINTMENT ACT

Shadow Speaker Appointment Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

As amended by: Cerdinia

With the urgent hearing for the Secretary of Roleplay concluded, we will return to where we left off with the Shadow Speaker Appointment Act.

Senators have already have a good amount of time to debate this bill, but due to the disruption to the debate stage I will be allowing for some more time.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Rayekka

VOTING - SHADOW SPEAKER APPOINTMENT ACT

Shadow Speaker Appointment Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

As amended by: Cerdinia

It appears that Senators are satisfied with the debate we have already had on this bill. As no one wishes to make any further contributions, we will now move on to voting.

My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations

RESULTS - SHADOW SPEAKER APPOINTMENT ACT

Shadow Speaker Appointment Act

Author: Rayekka

Sponsor: Rayekka

As amended by: Cerdinia

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Shadow Speaker Appointment Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 6-0. The bill has been approved by both chambers of Congress and now passes to Prime Minister Korsinia to be signed into law.

Brototh

OPENING DEBATE - CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT ACT

Congressional Oversight Act

Authors: Aexodian & Fishergate

Sponsors: Aexodian & Fishergate

As amended by: Rayekka

Speaker Rayekka's amendments

This bill has been returned to us by the House with a couple of amendments made. The amendments are fairly minor and serve to improve the workability and effectiveness of the bill.

Personally, I am in support of the amendments, but if any Senator sees any problems, or would simply like to make further amendments to the bill, do not hesitate to let it be known.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations

I am also in support of these amendments and have no objections to it.

Fishergate, Asean Nations

I support the amendments and I have no problems with them.

Should we add the SoRP in this so we can call that person in the future legally

Marvinville wrote:Should we add the SoRP in this so we can call that person in the future legally

That probably is for the best.

Although the RP is generally granted a lot of autonomy, it is still useful for Congress to be able to contact the Secretary when needed, as we did recently with the hearing for Islonia.

Andusre, Asean Nations, Marvinville

I have this amendment for the current bill

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Article 2: The purpose of Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence are being carried out by the executive branch. All members of the Government are subject to Ministerial Hearings. Members of the Government are defined as the Prime Minister, the President, All members of the Cabinet and the Secretary of the Role Play. Hearings will be held on the House of Commons or Senate RMB. It is recommended all members of government are scheduled one hearing per Parliamentary term. It is required that the Prime Minister is scheduled one hearing per Parliamentary term.

[/spoiler]

Fishergate

Marvinville wrote:I have this amendment for the current bill

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Article 2: The purpose of Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence are being carried out by the executive branch. All members of the Government are subject to Ministerial Hearings. Members of the Government are defined as the Prime Minister, the President, All members of the Cabinet and the Secretary of the Role Play. Hearings will be held on the House of Commons or Senate RMB. It is recommended all members of government are scheduled one hearing per Parliamentary term. It is required that the Prime Minister is scheduled one hearing per Parliamentary term.

[/spoiler]

I see this amendment as an improvement to the bill, allowing Congress to maintain a channel of communication with the RP secretary as well as the cabinet ministers. The only possible concern is that the RP Secretary is not technically accountable to Congress, so there is not much that could be done to enforce it if the RP Secretary refused to comply. Nonetheless, it's better to include this amendment at the risk of RP Secretaries ignoring it than to not include the amendment at all.

Andusre, Zon Island, Marvinville

Fishergate wrote:I see this amendment as an improvement to the bill, allowing Congress to maintain a channel of communication with the RP secretary as well as the cabinet ministers. The only possible concern is that the RP Secretary is not technically accountable to Congress, so there is not much that could be done to enforce it if the RP Secretary refused to comply. Nonetheless, it's better to include this amendment at the risk of RP Secretaries ignoring it than to not include the amendment at all.

I agree with this

Zon Island

AMENDMENT VOTING - CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT ACT

Amendment A

Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Article 2: The purpose of Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence are being carried out by the executive branch. All members of the Government are subject to Ministerial Hearings. Members of the Government are defined as the Prime Minister, the President, All members of the Cabinet and the Secretary of the Role Play. Hearings will be held on the House of Commons or Senate RMB. It is recommended all members of government are scheduled one hearing per Parliamentary term. It is required that the Prime Minister is scheduled one hearing per Parliamentary term.[/spoiler]

Senators, please now cast your votes for or against the proposed amendment. I am voting 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Zon Island, Marvinville

Aye

Zon Island, Marvinville

Aye

Zon Island, Marvinville

aye

Zon Island, Marvinville

AMENDMENT RESULTS - CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT ACT

Amendment A

Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Article 2: The purpose of Hearings is for Congress to submit questions to a specific Minister in the executive government, to make sure progress and competence are being carried out by the executive branch. All members of the Government are subject to Ministerial Hearings. Members of the Government are defined as the Prime Minister, the President, All members of the Cabinet and the Secretary of the Role Play. Hearings will be held on the House of Commons or Senate RMB. It is recommended all members of government are scheduled one hearing per Parliamentary term. It is required that the Prime Minister is scheduled one hearing per Parliamentary term.[/spoiler]

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Nays (0):

Abstentions (2):

Aexodian

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Senator Marvinville's amendment has passed by a vote of 5-0. The bill will now be updated accordingly before being brought back to the floor for a final vote.

VOTING - CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT ACT

Congressional Oversight Act

Authors: Aexodian & Fishergate

Sponsors: Aexodian & Fishergate

As amended by: Rayekka & Marvinville

The amended bill is now ready to be voted on. My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

RESULTS - CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT ACT

Congressional Oversight Act

Authors: Aexodian & Fishergate

Sponsors: Aexodian & Fishergate

As amended by: Rayekka & Marvinville

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (1):

Catlin[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Congressional Oversight Act, as amended, has passed the Senate by a vote of 6-0. It will now return once again to the House of Commons where the latest amendments will be considered.

[spoiler=Speaker]Rayekka[/spoiler]

OPENING DEBATE - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT

House Committees Act

Authors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

As amended by: Rayekka & Pap Sculgief

House amendments

This is another bill we are revisiting after the House has passed amendments to it. Please read through the bill carefully and share your thoughts with the Senate.

The amendment authors, Rayekka and Pap Sculgief, may take part in this debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville, Zanaana

As so one seems eager to make a contribution, I'll share my views on these amendments.

Overall, I think they improve the bill by making it clearer and less ambiguous.

However, I believe that Amendment G is too rigid. Depending on the size of the House, it will not always be possible for the committees to follow the 40-30-30 pattern.

Therefore, I propose the following amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article II Section I to read as follows:

Section 1- Every member of the House of Commons will be in a Committee set out in this Act. All the Committees must have an odd number of seats.

A. The Domestic Affairs Committee will consist of approximately 40% of the seats in the House.

B. The Foreign Affairs Committee will consist of approximately 30% of the seats in the House.

C. The Executive Overreach Committee will consist of approximately 30% of the seats in the House.[/spoiler]

The amendment simply adds 'approximately' before the prescribed percentage to give the bill some more flexibility.

I've also spotted a minor syntax error in Amendment F. I wouldn't usually send a bill back for such a minor error, but if we're going to be amending the bill anyway, there is no harm.

[spoiler=Amendment B]Amend Article I Section I Part C to read as follows:

C. The Executive Overreach Committee will be tasked with conducting hearings with Cabinet Ministers and more specifically scrutinising and overlooking the actions and decisions of the Prime Minister and President.[/spoiler]

The amendment adds 'of' after the word 'decisions'.

Snowflame, Marvinville

I quite agree with the amendments that have been suggested by Fishergate. With those amendments, I am fully in support of this revised bill.

Snowflame, Fishergate, Marvinville

AMENDMENT VOTING - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT

Amendment A

Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article II Section I to read as follows:

Section 1- Every member of the House of Commons will be in a Committee set out in this Act. All the Committees must have an odd number of seats.

A. The Domestic Affairs Committee will consist of approximately 40% of the seats in the House.

B. The Foreign Affairs Committee will consist of approximately 30% of the seats in the House.

C. The Executive Overreach Committee will consist of approximately 30% of the seats in the House.[/spoiler]

Amendment B

Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment B]Amend Article I Section I Part C to read as follows:

C. The Executive Overreach Committee will be tasked with conducting hearings with Cabinet Ministers and more specifically scrutinising and overlooking the actions and decisions of the Prime Minister and President.[/spoiler]

We will now vote on my proposed amendments. I vote 'aye' for both.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Aye to both as well

AMENDMENT RESULTS - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT

Amendment A

Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article II Section I to read as follows:

Section 1- Every member of the House of Commons will be in a Committee set out in this Act. All the Committees must have an odd number of seats.

A. The Domestic Affairs Committee will consist of approximately 40% of the seats in the House.

B. The Foreign Affairs Committee will consist of approximately 30% of the seats in the House.

C. The Executive Overreach Committee will consist of approximately 30% of the seats in the House.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (7):

Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):[/spoiler]

Amendment B

Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment B]Amend Article I Section I Part C to read as follows:

C. The Executive Overreach Committee will be tasked with conducting hearings with Cabinet Ministers and more specifically scrutinising and overlooking the actions and decisions of the Prime Minister and President.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (7):

Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):[/spoiler]

Both amendments have passed by votes of 7-0. We will now move onto voting on the amended bill.

VOTING - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT

House Committees Act

Authors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

As amended by: Rayekka, Pap Sculgief & Fishergate

Please cast your votes for or against the newly-amended House Committees Act.

My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin[/spoiler]

RESULTS - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT

House Committees Act

Authors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

As amended by: Rayekka, Pap Sculgief & Fishergate

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (1):

Catlin

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the House Committees Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 5-1. It will now return once again to the House for MPs to debate the new amendments.

The next order of business will be introduced when NS calms down because damn is it slow at the moment.

[spoiler=Speaker]Rayekka[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Marvinville

OPENING DEBATE - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I SECTION III OF THE CONSTITUTION

Constitutional Amendment

Author: Brototh

Sponsor: Marvinville

The Constitution (current form)

Court Ruling 005

This Constitutional amendment has been submitted following C.R.005 to address the concern that a WA-wavered citizen may be elected President but would not be able to fulfil the all the duties associated with the role, specifically WA delegate.

I encourage Senators to look through the amendment carefully and consider if they think it is the best way to solve this problem. If not, please submit amendments of your own.

The amendment's author, Brototh, may take part in this debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Brototh, Asean Nations, Zanaana

Hello Honourable Members of the Senate,

As the Speaker Fishergate has said this amendment is designed to combat the issue that a WA-waivered citizen is not able to fulfil the requirement of becoming the WA delegate of Thaecia, however still has the right to be amended.

The issue caused a heated debate in the Discord server over what the court did and should've done, and as such I have prepared this constitutional amendment on advice of Court Ruling 005 which asks that an amendment is made.

I have been proposed may possible outcomes to this problem, such as selecting a Vice President after the President is elected, and not allowing non-WA citizens to run. As agreed on by PM Korsinia and FAM The Bigtopia, creating a second class of citizen able to run in Presidential elections is more likely than not going to create some sort of segregation issue and alienate the other half of the population. The solution proposed here allows WA waivered citizens to run and assume as much power as they physically can without being a WA nation.

The amendment suggests that a WA nation would run on a ticket with the hopeful WA-Waivered nation, which is better than selecting afterwards as people would know who they are voting for. It also resolves the issue of a 'non-elected Vice President' issue that has been brought up several times before. The Vice President will effectively act as the WA Delegate in place of the President. If the hopeful President does not select a nation by the date of the election, they will be disqualified from the race.

I am open to amendments and suggestions, and if the bill is too out of order and you believe it needs re-writing I am happy to write it alongside you.

Snowflame, Fishergate, Asean Nations, United States Of Edingbridge, Aexodian, Marvinville, Zanaana

I think we should pass the amendments and we should applaud Cerdenia for finding the problem.

Brototh, Fishergate, Asean Nations, Marvinville

I think that this amendment is a good idea. It gives our waivered citizens an opportunity to run for president, which I completely approve of, and it solves a problem with alienation. We should definitely pass this Constitutional Amendment.

Brototh, Fishergate, Asean Nations

VOTING - AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I SECTION III OF THE CONSTITUTION

Constitutional Amendment

Author: Brototh

Sponsor: Marvinville

It seems there is a consensus of support behind this amendment, so let's move to the voting stage.

As this is a constitutional amendment, a two-thirds majority of support is required for the bill to pass.

My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

SUSPENSION OF VOTING

The author of the amendment wishes to alter the bill and I believe they have good reason to do so.

Brototh, please state the alteration you wish to make to the bill.

Senators, we will consider the alteration made to the bill and then return to voting.

Brototh

Hello Senators once again,

I have realised an error with my bill in which there is no solution for if the Vice President of Thaecia resigns from their position, which would leave us without a WA Delegate and return to step one again. My solution is as follows:

Sub-section V- If the nominated Vice President resigns, the President must then select a new Vice President. Once the President has selected a new Vice President, they must go to a regional confirmation vote. If they achieve a simple majority, they will become the Vice President, if not, the President must select a new Vice President.

Sub-section VI - If the WA-Waivered President fails to select a new Vice President within 2 days, this will be grounds for impeachment.

I have included a confirmation vote for these reasons:

1) It is akin to the method that is used in the Regional Roleplay, which works excellently.

2) It does not mean a snap election has to be held for the President's role, which would be open to corruption if the VP & President have a falling out.

3) It retains the asset of 'regional democracy' in which the Vice President must be accepted by the people, for example without a confirmation vote the VP could resign immediately and be replaced immediately.

The time limit is added to prevent the VP resigning and then the President refusing to nominate another one, removing the time limit doesn't define what 'failing to select' means.

Hypothetically, the procedure would be overseen by the Electoral Commissioner similar to how the RP Secretary vote is overseen by the Commissioner. Again I am open to thoughts and comments from anyone.

Brototh wrote:Hello Senators once again,

I have realised an error with my bill in which there is no solution for if the Vice President of Thaecia resigns from their position, which would leave us without a WA Delegate and return to step one again. My solution is as follows:

Sub-section V- If the nominated Vice President resigns, the President must then select a new Vice President. Once the President has selected a new Vice President, they must go to a regional confirmation vote. If they achieve a simple majority, they will become the Vice President, if not, the President must select a new Vice President.

Sub-section VI - If the WA-Waivered President fails to select a new Vice President within 2 days, this will be grounds for impeachment.

I have included a confirmation vote for these reasons:

1) It is akin to the method that is used in the Regional Roleplay, which works excellently.

2) It does not mean a snap election has to be held for the President's role, which would be open to corruption if the VP & President have a falling out.

3) It retains the asset of 'regional democracy' in which the Vice President must be accepted by the people, for example without a confirmation vote the VP could resign immediately and be replaced immediately.

The time limit is added to prevent the VP resigning and then the President refusing to nominate another one, removing the time limit doesn't define what 'failing to select' means.

Hypothetically, the procedure would be overseen by the Electoral Commissioner similar to how the RP Secretary vote is overseen by the Commissioner. Again I am open to thoughts and comments from anyone.

I think that 2 days would be too short, as we've seen with Xernon in the past, where it took him a long time to select an EC

Brototh

I think there may need to be a limit on the amount of times a WA-wavered President's VP nomination can be rejected. For example if they pick three different nominees for VP and all are rejected, then a snap-election for the Presidency is triggered.

I also think we might need to specify procedures for impeaching the Vice President.

Snowflame, Brototh, Asean Nations, Marvinville

Marvinville wrote:I think that 2 days would be too short, as we've seen with Xernon in the past, where it took him a long time to select an EC

I agree with your statement, perhaps a period of 5 days would be more fitting.

Fishergate wrote:I think there may need to be a limit on the amount of times a WA-wavered President's VP nomination can be rejected. For example if they pick three different nominees for VP and all are rejected, then a snap-election for the Presidency is triggered.

I like this, and agree with it completely.

Fishergate wrote:I also think we might need to specify procedures for impeaching the Vice President.

Procedures could involve something along the lines of the President's impeachment method: (full document in italics)

Amended (amended) Constitutional Amendment

Seeing as their is no legal limit to how much of the Constitution can be amended in one go, perhaps it would be fitting for us to edit Article I Section VIII and split it into two parts of the President and Vice President as I have done so above. I have linked the full document with the added changes to the constitution and amendment herself.

Asean Nations

Brototh wrote:

Amended (amended) Constitutional Amendment

Seeing as their is no legal limit to how much of the Constitution can be amended in one go, perhaps it would be fitting for us to edit Article I Section VIII and split it into two parts of the President and Vice President as I have done so above. I have linked the full document with the added changes to the constitution and amendment herself.

I think this is now a very strong amendment and it accounts for all possibilities. I cannot see an issue with the bill, however I encourage Senators to look through it carefully and see if you can find any potential issues.

Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour

I don't see any issue with it anymore. I am willing to vote Sye to this.

Snowflame, Asean Nations

I have the same comment as Asean. I approve of the bill and I'm looking forward to voting to pass the bill.

Asean Nations

VOTING - AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION

Constitutional Amendment

Author: Brototh

Sponsor: Marvinville

I believe we are now ready to vote on this bill in it's updated form.

I remind the Senate that a 2/3 majority is required to pass this constitutional amendment.

My own vote is 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, Zanaana

'Aye'

Fishergate, Zanaana

RESULTS - AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION

Constitutional Amendment

Author: Brototh

Sponsor: Marvinville

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstention (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

I hereby declare this constitutional amendment has passed the Senate by a vote of 6-0. It will now pass to the House of Commons for debate.

Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville

OPENING DEBATE - NOTA on the Ballot Act

NOTA on the Ballot Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsor: Fishergate

This bill aims to mandate the Electoral Commissioner to include a 'None of the above' option on the ballot of all elections for public office.

Due to our digital voting system, it is currently impossible for voters to 'spoil' their ballot or otherwise actively abstain.

All citizens have the right to abstain from voting in elections for public office, but there is currently no option to do so while playing an active part in the democratic process.

This bill changes this by allowing voters to actively abstain by choosing a 'none of the above' option. My belief is that this will strengthen the integrity and legitimacy of our democratic processes and will allow for citizens to have their voice heard even if they do not wish to vote for any candidate.

I encourage Senators to read through the bill and consider whether it could be strengthened or otherwise improved in any way.

The author, The Islamic Country Of Honour, may take part in this debate.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Cerdenia, The Islamic Country Of Honour

I sponsor this bill, I have no complaints

The Islamic Country Of Honour

I do not agree with this bill because I think that if people want to abstain, then they could simply not vote in the election. No need to add this to the ballot

Ah, talking in the Senate RMB after a long time.

Before I start, I would like to thank Chairman Fishergate for giving me the chance to present my argument on the floor of the Senate

As you can see in the Preamble, the purpose of this bill is to give those people who are not satisfied with any of the candidates that are on the ballot and still wish to participate in the democratic process, a voice. The current system forces the electorate to choose any of the candidates(even if none of them satisfies them) if they want to carry out their right to take part in the democratic process. Usually, if a person is not impressed with a candidate and is skeptical about that candidate's ability to serve his electorate well, he expresses his discontent by casting his ballot in favour of another person. But what if the person isn't confident that any of the candidates are deserving of their vote? Should he just pick the lesser of the evils but c'mon why should he even vote for one? Just because he wants to have his voice heard, we can't force him to choose a candidate who isn't deserving of their vote. By adding "None of the Above" on the ballot, we will resolve this problem, this ensures that person can fulfill his right as a citizen and at the same time, vote according to his conscience, that is "None of the Above" since none of the candidates don't deserve his precious vote. Through this, the person can also make official his discontent with the candidates in offer. This ensures a candidate receives vote only if he truly deserves it, not just because he is better than the other

A number of reputed people in this region including Cerdenia, Zanaana and Chairman Fishergate have checked the draft and proposed changes to it and thanks to their help and advice, we now have this final bill ready. However if you still see any flaws in the bill or want to strengthen it, you are more than welcome to do so!

Have a good time debating and I request your support in passing this bill Insha'Allah.

Regards,

The Islamic Country of Honour

(P.S- I miss being mentioned in the Senate RMB XD)

Cerdenia, Fishergate, Asean Nations

Marvinville wrote:I do not agree with this bill because I think that if people want to abstain, then they could simply not vote in the election. No need to add this to the ballot

But then again, there are currently no way to officially register a protest. By casting a NOTA vote, the voter will be officially conveying the fact that no one is deserving of his vote. It's kinda unfair for a person that he can't participate in the democratic process just because of a poor pool of candidates, something which was beyond his control

Catlin

Marvinville wrote:I do not agree with this bill because I think that if people want to abstain, then they could simply not vote in the election. No need to add this to the ballot

And this bill is intended for those people who don't want to abstain in the first place, but are not impressed with any of the candidates. A prime reason why people abstain is the lack of confidence in the candidates, this bill will be solving it.This new provision will also help in driving up the turnout and making more people participate in our democratic process.

I do like the bill and am likely to vote "aye", I do have an amendment.

[Spoiler=Amendment A] Scrap Article 3[/spoiler]

This bill is about candidates running for office. It doesn't necessarily make sense to have an article about bills in Congress.

Cerdenia, Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Speaker Zanaana

Snowflame wrote:I do like the bill and am likely to vote "aye", I do have an amendment.

[Spoiler=Amendment A] Scrap Article 3[/spoiler]

This bill is about candidates running for office. It doesn't necessarily make sense to have an article about bills in Congress.

Ya I find your amendment reasonable and would support that :)

Snowflame, Asean Nations, Zanaana

I support the Bill and the amendment given by Senator Snowflame.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Marvinville wrote:I do not agree with this bill because I think that if people want to abstain, then they could simply not vote in the election. No need to add this to the ballot

I would also like to note that this bill allows for the election to happen again if Abstain are above 50%. Not voting would remove that and I very much like that idea. I support the bill entirely and also the amendment proposed by Snowflame. It is clear that this refers to the Election System but Article 3 is a waste. Logically, NOTA wouldn't work with bills and we already have an Abstain option. Thus, I support the amendment proposed as well.

Saint Alban Islands, The Islamic Country Of Honour

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote:And this bill is intended for those people who don't want to abstain in the first place, but are not impressed with any of the candidates. A prime reason why people abstain is the lack of confidence in the candidates, this bill will be solving it.This new provision will also help in driving up the turnout and making more people participate in our democratic process.

In executive elections, a candidate needs a majority of the votes cast to win the election but what would happen if no candidate receives a majority, with there being a sizable NOTA? Say the vote for Candidate A was 47%, Candidate B was 43% and NOTA was 10%. Wouldn't that mean that there would be a new election due to no candidate receiving a majority of the votes?

Marvinville wrote:In executive elections, a candidate needs a majority of the votes cast to win the election but what would happen if no candidate receives a majority, with there being a sizable NOTA? Say the vote for Candidate A was 47%, Candidate B was 43% and NOTA was 10%. Wouldn't that mean that there would be a new election due to no candidate receiving a majority of the votes?

We can then add another section in the law, stating that if the NOTA receives less than 50%, the person who gets the most number of votes, or the majority of Non-NOTA votes, shall prevail. If you take a closer look at the constitution, you’ll realise that nowhere it is stated that a majority of votes is needed for someone to be elected in a PM or Presidential election. So this bill won’t be constitutionally a problem. So here’s my amendment;

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Add Section D to Article 2

Section-D: In the event that “None of the Above” gets less than 50% of the votes in the original or the special elections or gets 50% of the vote, the candidate who received the most number of votes, or the majority of the Non-“None of the Above” votes, shall be the winner. [/spoiler]

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote:We can then add another section in the law, stating that if the NOTA receives less than 50%, the person who gets the most number of votes, or the majority of Non-NOTA votes, shall prevail. If you take a closer look at the constitution, you’ll realise that nowhere it is stated that a majority of votes is needed for someone to be elected in a PM or Presidential election. So this bill won’t be constitutionally a problem. So here’s my amendment;

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Add Section D to Article 2

Section-D: In the event that “None of the Above” gets less than 50% of the votes in the original or the special elections or gets 50% of the vote, the candidate who received the most number of votes, or the majority of the Non-“None of the Above” votes, shall be the winner. [/spoiler]

It's probably wise to clarify this so there is no disagreement over it in the future.

The system we use for PM and President elections is designed to elect a candidate who has the support of a majority of voters. If NOTA votes are discounted unless they total 50% of the votes cast, this could be compromised.

Instead, I propose that NOTA votes are counted as if NOTA were a candidate. This way, NOTA will be part of the vote counting process and will remain in the 'race' until it is the 'candidate' with the fewest votes. Normally, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their ballots are redistributed to the other candidates. Of course with ballots which voted NOTA, there will be no lower preference candidates to redistribute to, and NOTA will not receive any extra votes redistributed from other candidates' ballots. This means that NOTA will only be the 'winning candidate' if it has A. a majority of first preference votes, or B. more votes than the next highest candidate received from all ballots combined (first preference votes on ballots cast for them and any lower preference votes on ballots cast for other candidates). This means NOTA does not necessarily need 50% of first preference votes to be the most popular 'candidate' and it prevents the election of a candidate who does not enjoy the support of a majority of voters.

With this in mind, I submit the following amendment:

[spoiler=Amendment C]Add Section D to Article 2 to read as follows:

For elections using the instant-runoff system, NOTA will be included in the vote count as if it were a candidate. If it finishes the vote count-elimination-redistribution process with more votes than the highest placing candidate, there shall be another election.[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Chairman, I would like to inform you that I am withdrawing my earlier Amendment in support of yours. I support Chairman Fishergate’s amendment. And Senator Marvinton, nowhere it is stated that a person must get 50% to win and the bill states that there shall be an election ONLY if NOTA gets more than 50% of the vote.

Fishergate

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote:Chairman, I would like to inform you that I am withdrawing my earlier Amendment in support of yours. I support Chairman Fishergate’s amendment. And Senator Marvinton, nowhere it is stated that a person must get 50% to win and the bill states that there shall be an election ONLY if NOTA gets more than 50% of the vote.

But again, the system we use requires a candidate to receive 50%+ to win an election

What I don't like about the bill is its methods of "resolving" a situation where NOTA votes are greater than 50%. It risks throwing an election season into one continuous, neverending loop of the following:

>Candidates X, Y and Z run

>NOTA >50%

>Fresh elections called

>Candidates X, Y, Z run

the cycle repeats.

Obviously, this is not conducive to good government and, though unlikely to actually happen, I think it needs to be accounted for.

The rest of the bill I'm fine with.

Marvinville wrote:But again, the system we use requires a candidate to receive 50%+ to win an election

It isn't stated anywhere, Marv. We can't just establish a convention as a law. Fishergate's amendment has addressed this problem and I don't believe this will cause any constitutional problem. Through Fishergate's amendment, we will be considering the NOTA as a candidate. And the bill has clearly stated that there shall be election only if the NOTA is above 50% and in no other circumstance.

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote:It isn't stated anywhere, Marv. We can't just establish a convention as a law. Fishergate's amendment has addressed this problem and I don't believe this will cause any constitutional problem. Through Fishergate's amendment, we will be considering the NOTA as a candidate. And the bill has clearly stated that there shall be election only if the NOTA is above 50% and in no other circumstance.

if you look up the definition of the system that is described in the constitution, it says that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win. Also if there is another election if no candidate reaches a majority due to this, there could be a repeat, causing multiple elections if citizens just constantly use this option. I think it could waste our time with many more un needed elections.

Marvinville wrote:if you look up the definition of the system that is described in the constitution, it says that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win. Also if there is another election if no candidate reaches a majority due to this, there could be a repeat, causing multiple elections if citizens just constantly use this option. I think it could waste our time with many more un needed elections.

As Fishergate's amendment states, NOTA is to be considered a candidate, not as a separate entity. It shall remain until it is the lowest candidate. The system shall remain the same, just that we'll have a new option "NOTA". And unless it's below 50%, it's unlikely to hinder an election so you don't have to worry about that.

Andusre wrote:What I don't like about the bill is its methods of "resolving" a situation where NOTA votes are greater than 50%. It risks throwing an election season into one continuous, neverending loop of the following:

>Candidates X, Y and Z run

>NOTA >50%

>Fresh elections called

>Candidates X, Y, Z run

the cycle repeats.

Obviously, this is not conducive to good government and, though unlikely to actually happen, I think it needs to be accounted for.

The rest of the bill I'm fine with.

Andusre, what we can do is raise the threshold needed to trigger another election after the special one to 60% to avoid calling another elections. But it has its own con as well, just for the sake of "stability", we would be forcing people to accept someone who has been rejected by 60% of the people. And we can't force anyone to drop out as it would violate the constitution, "the right to run for political office".

That's why I called for a fresh election with a new CDP. I am sure someone seeing the high unpopularity of the candidates will throw their ring in the hand and we citizens would also be smart to avoid an endless loop of election. I am however open to any suggestions you make

Fishergate, Asean Nations

Post self-deleted by Marvinville.

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