Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote: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

We have never had any issues with this ever, no need to change the system

I have come up with a solution: We can put a limit on the number of special elections that can take place to 1, in the special election, the one who receives the most number of votes will prevail, no matter how many NOTA votes are cast.

Marvinville wrote:We have never had any issues with this ever, no need to change the system

I have come up with a solution Marv, I hope you read that

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote:I have come up with a solution Marv, I hope you read that

Then why is there a "solution" to an issue we have never had?

Marvinville wrote:Then why is there a "solution" to an issue we have never had?

Then why do we even propose amendments to bills being debated, Marv?

I would appreciate it if anyone can propose an amendment stating that there shall be a limit of one special election and abolishing Section-C of Article 2

I believe a Senator is supposed to propose amendments, not me

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote:Then why do we even propose amendments to bills being debated, Marv?

Well if NOTA would be used, it should not be used as a candidate. It should more like be an abstain and it will not affect the vote totals at all

Marvinville wrote:Well if NOTA would be used, it should not be used as a candidate. It should more like be an abstain and it will not affect the vote totals at all

It won't affect the vote tally. A person who votes "None of the Above" will, in all likelihood, not rank candidates which means the other candidates won't get any preference vote from them. And by telling it doesn't matter, we would be giving less importance to those people who have voted "NOTA"

Mr. Chairman, I would like to sponsor Cerdenia to speak on the floor of the senate.

Fishergate, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Snowflame wrote:Mr. Chairman, I would like to sponsor Cerdenia to speak on the floor of the senate.

Thank you for the Sponsorship Honourable Senator.

I would like to adress a few points made during this debate which are false and purposely misleading.

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?

First of this. This post is false and misleading, if Candidate A got 47% of the votes he would be elected, if you put some effort into reading the bill you will realise there is only one situation as per the law which would allow for there to be a new election, and that is under Article II:

"In the case of an election, where “None of the Above" gets more than 50% of the votes(legal votes), there shall be another fresh election."

Then Senator Marv proceeds to claim that there would still need to be a new election because no candidate reached 50% of the votes. I ask him: what is the basis of that?

As per the constitution: "Voting for President and Prime Minister shall be held using the Immediate Runoff Voting (Alternate Vote) system." This system is based on votes being transfered from the candidates with the less votes until an individual gets the threshold of 50% + 1. If the election ends up as Senator Marv pointed out, this would mean Candidate A would be the winner, seeing as after the lowest perfoming candidate was removed (or in this case the "None of the Above" option) Candidate A would have the highest amount of votes, seeing as this law specifies there is no vote transfering if you spoil your ballot by choosing "None of the Above".

Also, there is an amendment suggestion I plan to make later, just wanted to rebut the false and misleading claim made by Senator Marvinville.

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

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.

If such a situation arises where we cannot find any candidates who a majority of the Thaecian electorate are willing to vote for, we will have much more serious issues than can be addressed in this bill.

Such an eventually would no doubt require a complete overhaul of our democratic system to fix whatever the underlying problem is. I hope this is never going to happen to us, but if it does we will have to address it when it does according to the specifics of the issue.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Cerdenia wrote:Thank you for the Sponsorship Honourable Senator.

I would like to adress a few points made during this debate which are false and purposely misleading.

First of this. This post is false and misleading, if Candidate A got 47% of the votes he would be elected, if you put some effort into reading the bill you will realise there is only one situation as per the law which would allow for there to be a new election, and that is under Article II:

"In the case of an election, where “None of the Above" gets more than 50% of the votes(legal votes), there shall be another fresh election."

Then Senator Marv proceeds to claim that there would still need to be a new election because no candidate reached 50% of the votes. I ask him: what is the basis of that?

As per the constitution: "Voting for President and Prime Minister shall be held using the Immediate Runoff Voting (Alternate Vote) system." This system is based on votes being transfered from the candidates with the less votes until an individual gets the threshold of 50% + 1. If the election ends up as Senator Marv pointed out, this would mean Candidate A would be the winner, seeing as after the lowest perfoming candidate was removed (or in this case the "None of the Above" option) Candidate A would have the highest amount of votes, seeing as this law specifies there is no vote transfering if you spoil your ballot by choosing "None of the Above".

Also, there is an amendment suggestion I plan to make later, just wanted to rebut the false and misleading claim made by Senator Marvinville.

So would this technically mean that NOTA would be a candidate?

Marvinville wrote:So would this technically mean that NOTA would be a candidate?

I don't see how an option to not vote for a candidate is a candidate.

Cerdenia wrote:I don't see how an option to not vote for a candidate is a candidate.

"For elections using the instant-runoff system, NOTA will be included in the vote count as if it were a candidate." -Amendment C.

Marvinville wrote:"For elections using the instant-runoff system, NOTA will be included in the vote count as if it were a candidate." -Amendment C.

The amendment never stated that NOTA would be a candidate, it seemed to draw comparison to a candidate by saying that it would be included in the vote count just like a candidate. It will be considered like a candidate while counting the vote, not that it will be a candidate.

Cerdenia

I would like to submit this amendment.

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Removes Article 2

[/spoiler]

Marvinville wrote:I would like to submit this amendment.

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Removes Article 2

[/spoiler]

It would not be rational for us to remove an important aspect of a bill without proposing any solution to it. Without the Article 2, some questions can be raised, “Even if NOTA gets 99% of the votes, what will be the future course of action?” We’ll be inviting more problems by scrapping it. So I don’t support your amendment.

Fishergate

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote:It would not be rational for us to remove an important aspect of a bill without proposing any solution to it. Without the Article 2, some questions can be raised, “Even if NOTA gets 99% of the votes, what will be the future course of action?” We’ll be inviting more problems by scrapping it. So I don’t support your amendment.

Marv has a history of proposing purposely bad amendments when he is losing the argument as a last ditch resort to see if he can trick people into supporting the amendment.

Marvinville wrote:I would like to submit this amendment.

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Removes Article 2

[/spoiler]

I do not support this amendment. Like ICH said, this would throw the entire bill into disarray with the removal of that Article. As you did not propose a solution, I would not support this article. Even so, I do not see a problem with the article in question. It makes sense that if half the population does not support any of the candidates that they should not be elected. As Andusre, I am worried about the threat of one long loop but that would show that something is at fault with the system. This, in my opinion, would not come to pass but if it does, it needs to be addressed when that happens.

Marvinville wrote:"For elections using the instant-runoff system, NOTA will be included in the vote count as if it were a candidate." -Amendment C.

How does this correlate? It clearly states that it will be considered AS IF WERE a candidate, not an actual candidate.

Fishergate, Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour

I would like to propose Amendment E

Removes Section C of Article 2 | Adds a new Section C which states *In the fresh election, even if the NOTA option gets more than 50% of legal votes cast, the candidate that receives the most votes will win despite not having a majority.*

This was proposed after ICH's idea. This would fix the problem of there being one long loop and would limit the number of special elections to one as well as not prolonging the election season by a vast amount of time.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aexodian wrote:I would like to propose Amendment E

Removes Section C of Article 2 | Adds a new Section C which states *In the fresh election, even if the NOTA option gets more than 50% of legal votes cast, the candidate that receives the most votes will win despite not having a majority.*

This was proposed after ICH's idea. This would fix the problem of there being one long loop and would limit the number of special elections to one as well as not prolonging the election season by a vast amount of time.

My concern with this amendment is that it could result in a candidate being elected who does not have the support of the voters. It's far from ideal to keep reholding elections, but if it's really the case that the voters don't want any of the candidates, we will surely have much bigger problems that will have to be dealt with first. It's better to have an arduous election process than have candidates elected without the support of the voters.

Asean Nations, Zon Island, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Zanaana

Since I have a sponsorship for this debate anyway, let me just say I support Aexodian's amendment. First of all it's a burden in the commissioner to keep having elections again and again, and second, if we have an election repeat and nothing changes, the chance something will actually change next time is very low. It's no trouble for us voters sure, but it's a pain for the EC and I believe could actually lead to a form of regional stagnation. Another thing to note is that people can vote None of the Above just to troll, so to keep having elections because of this would also be a terrible thing.

The Islamic Country Of Honour, Zanaana

AMENDMENT VOTING - NOTA ON THE BALLOT ACT

NOTA on the Ballot Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsor: Fishergate

Amendment A

Snowflame

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

Amendment B

Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment B]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]

Amendment C

Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment C]Removes Article 2[/spoiler]

Senators, please now cast your votes for or against each of the amendments proposed.

My own votes are 'aye' to Amendments A and B, 'nay' to Amendment C.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin[/spoiler]

My votes is Aye to Amendment A and B and Nay to Amendment C.

Fishergate

A - Aye

B - Nay

C - Aye

aye to A and B nay to C

Aye to Amendment A and B. Nay to Amendment C

A= Aye

B= Aye

C= Nay

Sorry to interrupt you, but didn't we have an amendment proposed by Aexodian?

Marvinville

The Islamic Country Of Honour wrote:Sorry to interrupt you, but didn't we have an amendment proposed by Aexodian?

You're quite right.

Senators, please also cast a vote for or against the following amendment:

Amendment D

Aexodian

[spoiler=Amendment D]Removes Section C of Article 2 | Adds a new Section C which states:

In the fresh election, even if the NOTA option gets more than 50% of legal votes cast, the candidate that receives the most votes will win despite not having a majority.[/spoiler]

My own vote for this amendment is 'nay'.

[spoiler=Senators]Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Nay for Amendment D

Fishergate

'Nay' for amendment D.

Fishergate

Nay for Amendment D

Fishergate

Seeing as a majority is reached, I shall abstain from voting.

A: Aye

B: Nay

C: abstain

D: aye

AMENDMENT RESULTS - NOTA ON THE BALLOT ACT

Amendment A - PASSED

Snowflame

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

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (7):

Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):[/spoiler]

Amendment B - PASSED

Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment B]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]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Snowflame

Nays (2):

Andusre

Marvinville[/spoiler]

Amendment C - FAILED

Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment C]Removes Article 2[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (1):

Marvinville

Nays (5):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Snowflame

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

Amendment D - FAILED

Aexodian

[spoiler=Amendment D]Removes Section C of Article 2 | Adds a new Section C which states:

In the fresh election, even if the NOTA option gets more than 50% of legal votes cast, the candidate that receives the most votes will win despite not having a majority.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (1):

Andusre

Nays (5):

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Abstentions (1):

Aexodian[/spoiler]

The Senate has approved two of the proposed amendments - Amendment A and Amendment B.

The bill will now be updated to include these amendments before being brought back to the floor for the final vote.

VOTING - NOTA ON THE BALLOT ACT

NOTA on the Ballot Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsor: Fishergate

As amended by: Snowflame & Fishergate

Please now cast your votes for or against the amended bill.

I am voting 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Asean Nations, Zon Island, The Islamic Country Of Honour

'Aye'

The Islamic Country Of Honour

aye

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

RESULTS - NOTA ON THE BALLOT ACT

NOTA on the Ballot Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsor: Fishergate

As amended by: Snowflame & Fishergate

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Snowflame

Nays (1):

Marvinville

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the NOTA on the Ballot Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 5-1. It will now advance to the House of Commons for further scrutiny.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Thanks a lot Senators for approving this bill.

OPENING DEBATE - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT (AMENDED)

House Committees Act

Authors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

As amended by: Rayekka, Fishergate, Pap Sculgief & Zanaana

Previous version of the bill

Speaker Zanaana's amendments

This bill is now on the Senate floor for the third time having been amended once again by the House of Commons. Please consider the bill, as amended by the House, and share any concerns you have or any further amendments you would like to propose.

[Spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville, Zanaana

For a while now, the House Committees Act has been back and forth between each chamber of Congress. I approve of all the amendments previously added and I'm looking forward to finally voting to pass this bill.

Fishergate, Asean Nations, Zon Island, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville, Zanaana

Like Snowflame said, I approve of all the bills added and just really want to pass this bill as it has been circulating around for a long time.

Snowflame, Zon Island

VOTING - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT (AMENDED)

House Committees Act

Authors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

As amended by: Rayekka, Fishergate, Pap Sculgief & Zanaana

Senators seem happy with the bill as it is now and I'm confident we have a majority ready to support it, so please now cast your votes for or against the bill.

[Spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin[/spoiler]

Snowflame, Asean Nations, Zon Island

I've never liked the idea of committees anyway. It's a Nay from me.

Catlin

Aye

Zon Island, Marvinville

Aye

Zon Island, Marvinville

Aye

Zon Island, Marvinville

RESULTS - HOUSE COMMITTEES ACT (AMENDED)

House Committees Act

Authors: Marvinville & Snowflame

Sponsors: Marvinville & Snowflame

As amended by: Rayekka, Fishergate, Pap Sculgief & Zanaana

RESULTS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (2):

Andusre

Catlin[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the House Committees Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 5-2. The same version of the bill has now been approved by both chambers of Congress and will pass to the Prime Minister's desk to be signed into law.

Pap Sculgief, Zanaana

OPENING DEBATE - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Impeachable Offences Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsor: Fishergate

This bill is designed to establish legal principles whereby a Prime Minister or President may be impeached. Currently there is no law clearly specifying the offences for which an elected executive branch official can be impeached. This needs to change.

I encourage Senators to raise any issues they have with the bill and to propose amendments accordingly. However, I strongly advise that we do pass at least a modified version of this bill.

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

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Hello guys, I am sure you had seen me a few days ago in the Senate RMB during the debate on the “NOTA on the Ballot Act”. So I am here with yet another bill, The Impeachable Offences Act.

As Chairman Fishergate has pointed out, there is currently no law which specifies the offences that can get a President or Prime Minister impeached. In the absence of such a law, the citizens might not know exactly if the President or the PM has committed a crime which is worthy of getting them removed from office. The absence of such law also allows certain people to try and impeach the President or Prime Minister for an action which is in no way as serious as to get them impeached and this will hinder the work of the Senate and the House. This absence might also result in the President or Prime Minister getting impeached just because they didn’t please some certain people or for political purposes. If they are not pleased with him/her, they have every right to vote him or her out in the next election. So a law like the one I proposed will make it clear the actions which can create grounds for the impeachment.

If you guys feel there’s a problem with any aspect of the bill, I strongly suggest you to propose an amendment solving that.

Thank you

Pap Sculgief, Snowflame, Fishergate, Catlin, Asean Nations

I shall look over the bill while eating my Chinese takeout and shall propose my thoughts and opinions on the bill after this. I do encourage other Senators to provide their opinions on this as well as it would help me in my evaluation.

Catlin, The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aexodian wrote:I shall look over the bill while eating my Chinese takeout and shall propose my thoughts and opinions on the bill after this. I do encourage other Senators to provide their opinions on this as well as it would help me in my evaluation.

I hope you enjoy your food! I am looking forward to hearing your and the other Senator’s opinion about this bill!

I disagree with this bill due to reasons given by Cerdenia in the Thaecia rmb. Most, if not all, are in the regions laws so this is not needed in my opinion.

Marvinville wrote:I disagree with this bill due to reasons given by Cerdenia in the Thaecia rmb. Most, if not all, are in the regions laws so this is not needed in my opinion.

This bill does have clear crossovers with the Legal Code, however the Legal Code does not specify that its listed offences are impeachable offences, and no existing law states that violating the legal code is an impeachable offence.

The Constitution only mentions 'impeachable offences as decreed by law' and does not state what impeachable offences are. This could lead to debate over whether a PM or President can be impeached for violating the legal code. Obviously, common sense would tell us they can be, but common sense alone does not carry much legal weight.

I believe it's beneficial to clearly define what constitutes impeachable offences. If you don't like the fact that this bill borrows sections of the Legal Code, I suggest you propose an amendment to remove the duplicated sections. Otherwise, there is no downside to passing this bill.

Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville

If Senators wish to make any further comments on this bill or propose any amendments to it, please do so shortly. Otherwise we will commence voting this evening.

Asean Nations, Marvinville

I have no comment on the bill and I have decided on how I shall vote.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

I wish to submit these Amendments Fishergate

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Article 8 - This includes actions where the President or Prime Minister uses his/her power to suppress any of the rights the Constitution has granted to the citizens. For example, if the President or Prime Minister deprives someone of their right to freedom of Speech, they shall be impeached. Abuse of Power shall be defined as "the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Add:

Article 9 - Collusion

Collusion shall be defined as "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

[/spoiler]

I also have an issue with Article 3, which is "If the President or Prime Minister is found to be witholding or confiding any information that the region's interest, security or sovereignty is in danger, this action of confiding such information shall be deemed impeachable." How would this affect the issue of classified information that the government has that could deem dangerous to the region but the government looks to fix the issue before information is released? The Islamic Country Of Honour

Asean Nations

We should specify that this should only be applied if they confide such information from the concerned authorities Marvinville. And the Prime Minister or President is not the Government, they are a part of it. So I believe they should report it to the concerned ministers or to the Congress if they are investigating it.

Asean Nations, Marvinville

Post self-deleted by Marvinville.

I would like to submit these 2 additional amendments

[spoiler=Amendment C]

Amends Article 3:

If the President or Prime Minister is found to be witholding or confiding any information that the region's interest, security or sovereignty is in danger, without informing relevant authorities or Congress, this action of confiding such information shall be deemed impeachable.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]

Add:

Section 10 - Electoral Intervention

Attempts by the President or Prime Minister to influence elections in the region by using inter-regional assistance to disrupt and intervene in the electoral process that would benefit them politically.

[/spoiler]

Fishergate, Asean Nations

Personally, I think Senator Marvinville's amendments improve the bill and I plan on voting in favour of them. I will however allow some more time for Senators to submit further amendments or take issue with the amendments submitted so far if they wish. Voting will therefore not commence until tomorrow morning (in approximately 12 hours).

The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville

I have no issues here with the amendments and plan on voting in favour of them as well.

The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville

AMENDMENT VOTING - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Impeachable Offences Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsor: Fishergate

All Amendments

Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Article 8 - This includes actions where the President or Prime Minister uses his/her power to suppress any of the rights the Constitution has granted to the citizens. For example, if the President or Prime Minister deprives someone of their right to freedom of Speech, they shall be impeached. Abuse of Power shall be defined as "the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Add:

Article 9 - Collusion

Collusion shall be defined as "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]Amends Article 3:

If the President or Prime Minister is found to be withholding or confiding any information that the region's interest, security or sovereignty is in danger, without informing relevant authorities or Congress, this action of confiding such information shall be deemed impeachable.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]Add:

Section 10 - Electoral Intervention

Attempts by the President or Prime Minister to influence elections in the region by using inter-regional assistance to disrupt and intervene in the electoral process that would benefit them politically.[/spoiler]

Please now cast your votes for or against Senator Marvinville's amendments to the bill.

My own votes are 'aye' to all amendments.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour

'Aye' to all Amendments

The Islamic Country Of Honour

aye to B,C,D nay to A

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye to all

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Aye to all.

The Islamic Country Of Honour

Fishergate

Can you please fix the vote count for the NOTA Act. It states the bill passed the Senate 6-0 with 1 abstention but I voted against the bill.

Marvinville wrote:Fishergate

Can you please fix the vote count for the NOTA Act. It states the bill passed the Senate 6-0 with 1 abstention but I voted against the bill.

Apologies Senator for that mistake. It has now been fixed.

Marvinville

AAye to all amendments.

AMEDMENT RESULTS - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

All Amendments

Marvinville

[spoiler=Amendment A]

Article 8 - This includes actions where the President or Prime Minister uses his/her power to suppress any of the rights the Constitution has granted to the citizens. For example, if the President or Prime Minister deprives someone of their right to freedom of Speech, they shall be impeached. Abuse of Power shall be defined as "the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties."

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (1):

Catlin

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]

Add:

Article 9 - Collusion

Collusion shall be defined as "secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment C]Amends Article 3:

If the President or Prime Minister is found to be withholding or confiding any information that the region's interest, security or sovereignty is in danger, without informing relevant authorities or Congress, this action of confiding such information shall be deemed impeachable.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment D]Add:

Section 10 - Electoral Intervention

Attempts by the President or Prime Minister to influence elections in the region by using inter-regional assistance to disrupt and intervene in the electoral process that would benefit them politically.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (6):

Aexodian

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (1):

Andusre[/spoiler]

All amendments have passed and will now be applied to the bill. We will begin voting on the amended bill as soon as it is ready.

Zon Island

VOTING - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Impeachable Offences Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief

As amended by: Marvinville

The amended bill is now ready to be voted on. I am voting 'aye'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Zon Island

Aye

Zon Island, The Islamic Country Of Honour

aye

Zon Island

RESULTS - IMPEACHABLE OFFENCES ACT

Impeachable Offences Act

Author: The Islamic Country Of Honour

Sponsors: Fishergate & Pap Sculgief

As amended by: Marvinville

RESUTLS

[spoiler=Results]Ayes (5):

Asean Nations

Catlin

Fishergate

Marvinville

Snowflame

Nays (0):

Abstentions (2):

Aexodian

Andusre[/spoiler]

I hereby declare the Impeachable Offences Act has passed the Senate by a vote of 5-0. It will now pass to the House of Commons.

[spoiler=Speaker]Zanaana[/spoiler]

Zanaana

DEBATING - CONGRESSIONAL EXPANSION ACT OF MAY 2020

Congressional Expansion Act of May 2020

Authors: Pap Sculgief & Indian Genius

Sponsors: Fishergate, Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius & Zon Island

Senators, this bill aims to expand the size of Congress by four seats in the House and two in the Senate.

The co-author, Pap Sculgief MP, has requested that I inform the Senate that the authors are welcome to amendments to the bill.

Personally I am opposed to this expansion as I do not think there is a large enough population of committed Thaecians to make a 24-seat legislature effective or practical. I am, however, interested to hear the opinions of the rest of the Senate.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Asean Nations, Zon Island, Marvinville, Zanaana

I agree with Fishergate that we may have a shortage of active nations that would be willing to participate in Congress. What we have right now works well and elections for the House is becoming more competitive, which is what we want. However, if my fellow Senators do want to expand Congress, I would support an Amendment to this Bill that would expand the House to 13 members while keeping the Senate at 7. Right now, there is just no need for a major expansion of Congress.

Catlin, Asean Nations, Zon Island, Zanaana

Post self-deleted by Marvinville.

I don't think we need an expansion of Congress, There are enough active nations that can fill in the seats and enough seats to represent the population.

Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana

Apologies for missing the last vote. The WiFI in my area suddenly stopped working for a while. About the bill, we don't need to expand Congress to a bigger size. Like Fishergate said, or population might not be committed and frankly, the system we have right now works and I do not want to change it. I plan to vote Nay unless a solid argument is raised in favour of the bill.

Catlin, Asean Nations, Marvinville, Zanaana

Now I presume as the co-author, I am permitted to speak on the matter of this bill.

Firstly, I’d like to point out that I agree the expansion proposed is too high. Looking back in hindsight, I know it is too high for our region and active citizens. When I wrote the bill, it was originally for the HoC only, and Indian Genius thought it necessary to expand the Senate, so I’d like to invite Indian Genius to explain their reasoning behind the Senate expansion.

That being said, I support Marvinville’s amendment, which expands the House to 13 and does nothing to the Senate. I encourage all Senators to support it as well, because it makes the bill more realistic and effective. While it still expands the House, it does it better than what I have proposed.

Now, to explain why we need the expansion. Over the last month and a bit, Thaecia has been growing in size. While a lot of the new arrivals aren’t WA, there are quite a few who are and therefore are citizens, who are allowed to vote. At the moment we have around 250 WA nations in Thaecia, some are active, some are not. And with this increase, means that the Legislature needs to expand to provide better representation of the citizens in Thaecia. The last time there was a proposed expansion to the legislative branch, was in August 2019 (according to the law registry) and that, I think, got rejected in the referendum. And so, this expansion has been a long time coming, and with Marvinville’s amendment, will allow the House to have more Points of View and will open the government to new ideas.

As well as that, by expanding the House to have more MPs, we are potentially opening the door to newer nations who want to be involved in government, and therefore, will increase the chance that the nation will be involved in the government in the future. An expanded legislature, not only directly affects bills and debates on a positive way, but can also help increase the number of politically active nations.

And so, I encourage Indian Genius to explain their reasoning behind a Senate expansion, I’d like to encourage the Senate to vote aye on Marvinville‘s amendment, and I encourage the Senate to vote aye on the bill, due to the reasons stated above.

Thank you

Asean Nations

While our population has increased significantly in recent weeks, there is no evidence to suggest that this has translated to a significant increase in the number of candidates willing to stand for Congressional elections. At the midterm elections last month, there were 18 candidates for the House of Commons. This is a small increase from the 14 who stood at the general election in February, but I don't believe it warrants an increase in the size of Congress. Thaecia benefits from having more competitive elections in which only the best candidates are elected. We don't want to make it too easy for candidates by creating too many seats, as this would allow less talented/committed candidates to be elected.

As for representation: our electoral system enhances representation by letting voters choose as many candidates as they wish. This means almost all voters will have cast a vote for at least on the candidates who ends up getting elected. Furthermore, at the last midterms, two MPs were elected with just two first-preference votes each. Assuming these candidates voted for themselves, this means only one other voter thought they were the best candidate to be elected. This goes to show how easily minority views can be represented in Congress with just a few high-preference votes.

Senator Marvinville's amendment to increase the House of Commons to 13 seats is more realistic than the original bill, but I feel it is still unnecessary. I would advise Senators to wait until after the general election next month before we move to increase the size of Congress. If there is a significant increase in candidates at that election, then we should reconsider.

Pap Sculgief, Catlin, Asean Nations, The Islamic Country Of Honour, Marvinville

I would like to point out that I have not put forth an official Amendment for the bill but was welcome to a change of 13 members for the House if Senators supported the idea.

Pap Sculgief, Fishergate, Asean Nations

I do agree with Fishergate and would like to address that we should wait until the next General Elections to get an idea of how many people are truly interested in Congress. This bill should be revisited in the future but I do not think it is required at the moment.

Pap Sculgief, Catlin, Asean Nations

Aexodian wrote:I do agree with Fishergate and would like to address that we should wait until the next General Elections to get an idea of how many people are truly interested in Congress. This bill should be revisited in the future but I do not think it is required at the moment.

I completely agree.

Pap Sculgief, Asean Nations

VOTING - CONGRESSIONAL EXPANSION ACT OF MAY 2020

Congressional Expansion Act of May 2020

Authors: Pap Sculgief & Indian Genius

Sponsors: Fishergate, Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius & Zon Island

No amendments have been submitted and it seems the Senate has reached a consensus to reject this bill. So we will now move to the voting stage.

My own vote is 'nay'.

[spoiler=Senators]Aexodian

Andusre

Asean Nations

Catlin

Marvinville

Snowflame[/spoiler]

Pap Sculgief

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