NATION

PASSWORD

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .131132133134135136137. . .313314»
Messages

The Republic of Marvinville

Aye

Dendrobium

Nay

Pap sculgief

Nay

The WA Delegate of Rayekka

Abstain

The Elected Monarchy of World Trade

Abstain

The Avatar of Thanatos of Islonia

Nay

The Kingdom of Brototh

Amendment A has failed.
Results:
Aye (1) : Marvinville
Nay (4) : Ashlawn, Dendrobium, Pap sculgief, Islonia
Abstain (4) : Brototh, Rayekka, World Trade, Andusre

Senators, we have begun voting on the final bill.
page=dispatch/id=1426801
My vote is Aye

The Avatar of Thanatos of Islonia

Aye

The Elected Monarchy of World Trade

Aye

Dendrobium

Aye

The Republic of Ashlawn

Aye

The Republic of Marvinville

Nay

Pap sculgief

Aye

The People's Republic of Andusre

Aye

The WA Delegate of Rayekka

Aye

The Republic of Ashlawn

The Bill passes.
Results:
Aye (8) Andusre, Ashlawn, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Pap sculgief, Rayekka, World Trade
Nay (1) Marvinville

Antenion
Senators, we have now begun debating the Constitutional Amendment Regarding Political Parties
Constitutional Amendments Regarding Political Parties
Authors: Pap sculgief, Korsinia
Sponsors: Pap sculgief

    I. Changes Article III Section III of the constitution to now say:
    Each chamber will be led by one Senator/Member of Parliament in the caucus of the ruling coalition, where the ruling coalition is the coalition whose sum of the number of seats of the parties in the coalition is greater than half of the total number of seats in that chamber as determined by a vote amongst the chamber representatives. 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 Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate shall have the power to determine their chamber's agenda. Both roles are chosen by a simple majority vote by the members of the respective chambers. Parties can only put forward one candidate for the chambers leadership elections. In the event in which no candidate is tied, but at the same time no candidate received more than 50% of the votes, a run-off is held between the two candidate who received the most votes.

    II. Changes Section VI of Article VIII of the constitution to now say:
    Section IV - Voting for President and Prime Minister shall be held using the Immediate Runoff Voting (Alternate Vote) system. Voting for the House of Commons and Senate shall be held using the Singular Transferable Vote system. Each political party with 5 or more registered members who are Thaecian citizens shall be allowed to register to be added to the ballot. Independents who are Thaecian citizens shall be allowed to register to be added to the ballot. The Electoral Commissioner shall be given the task of organising this process.

Read dispatch

The Avatar of Thanatos of Islonia

Nothing much to say here. It removes outdated parts of the constitutions that dates from the time of Party Voting, and I'm all for that. 😛

Pap sculgief and Indian genius

Pap sculgief

So essentially, these amendments originally appeared in a bill by Kors and I deofficialising political parties. I’m in the process of removing the main bill from the senate docket but allowing the amendments to be put forward. They are simply removing outdated clauses from the constitution, and I urge all Senators to support these amendments

The Elected Monarchy of World Trade

I see nothing wrong with this bill. It's really a simple change but it updates our constitution to be in line with where we are now as a region, that being mostly moved on from party politics. I still don't have anything massively against pary politics, but we do need to keep up with the times. I do support these amendments.

Dendrobium

In essense these Amendements try to do a good thing, namely updating clauses concerning parties. Political parties have indeed become less significant and less important, but that does not mean they, or some parts of these Amendements, should simply get one look at to be judged.

The first line to be removed talks about coalitions, which have become something that doesn't happen anymore these days, so I support it.

In the second part I think something has been looked over when editing the text however. While parties only putting forward one candidate for Speaker of Chairperson is something I would stand behind normally, but this rarely ever happens so it can be glossed over, but it is the sentence before that which concerns me. For what reason should the way the Speaker and Chairperson are elected by their respectable House not be specified? Now already is there more than often confusion about what type of majority they need for that! Removing this from the Constitution straight up does not make sense. That is why I propose Amendement A:

Changes the Amendements to Article III section III to say:
Each chamber will be led by one Senator/Member of Parliament in the caucus of the ruling coalition, where the ruling coalition is the coalition whose sum of the number of seats of the parties in the coalition is greater than half of the total number of seats in that chamber as determined by a vote amongst the chamber representatives. 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 Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate shall have the power to determine their chamber's agenda. Both roles are chosen by a simple majority vote by the members of the respective chambers. Parties can only put forward one candidate for the chambers leadership elections. In the event in which no candidate is tied, but at the same time no candidate received more than 50% of the votes, a run-off is held between the two candidate who received the most votes.

The last of actually three Amendements here talks about the ballots. Now just as a reminder for some who might have forgotten, but as of now, Thaecians have rights. Rights to speak their minds. Rights to join a political party. Rights to challange government. Rights to run in elections. And those are just a few. This Amendement is not so bold to directly break into Thaecian rights, but it does undermine them. When Thaecians want to join a political party, then let them; do not undermine this by removing what they worked for from the ballot. Be it running as an independent or as a member of a party, people should be allowed to be proud and open about that, to speak their minds about that. When Thaecians identify with the membership- or non-membership- of a party, then that is part of their identity in this region. And if your concern is that people won't vote for you because you are running as independent and not as a member of a party, then campaign harder and convince people so you won't need "the support of everyone from your party", since that is somehow an argument I have seen used for this. I, again, propose an Amendement:

Removes "II. Changes Section VI of Article VIII of the constitution to now say:" and everything below from "Constitutional Amendements Regarding Political Parties".

Pap sculgief and Marvinville

The Republic of Ashlawn

I have a question for the author Pap sculgief. If your changes to the constitution in the 2nd part of your amendment are implemented would the EC decide which political parties to include on the ballot or would political party affiliation just not be listed at all?

Pap sculgief

Pap sculgief

Ashlawn wrote:I have a question for the author Pap sculgief. If your changes to the constitution in the 2nd part of your amendment are implemented would the EC decide which political parties to include on the ballot or would political party affiliation just not be listed at all?

The latter. Party affiliation being mentioned, whether directly or indirectly, could affect who citizens vote for. The way I see it, candidates should be voted on by their campaign, and not party affiliation. Hope that answered your question.

In terms of Dendrobium’s amendments, I support Amendment A, as it is a logical amendment. But I’m against Amendment B. The amendment doesn’t undermine the right to run for election or join a party. It simply removes the need for parties to be on the ballot, not citizens wiling to run in an election. The idea was to make it only the candidates’ choice if they are to be added onto the ballot or not. We aren’t stopping citizens from joining a party and we certainly aren’t stopping candidates from mentioning their party affiliation in campaigns. What we are stopping is letting parties put themselves on the ballot, and making it solely the choice of a citizen to be added to the ballot or not.

Dendrobium

Pap sculgief wrote:In terms of Dendrobium’s amendments, I support Amendment A, as it is a logical amendment. But I’m against Amendment B. The amendment doesn’t undermine the right to run for election or join a party. It simply removes the need for parties to be on the ballot, not citizens wiling to run in an election. The idea was to make it only the candidates’ choice if they are to be added onto the ballot or not. We aren’t stopping citizens from joining a party and we certainly aren’t stopping candidates from mentioning their party affiliation in campaigns. What we are stopping is letting parties put themselves on the ballot, and making it solely the choice of a citizen to be added to the ballot or not.

You say it "removes the need for parties to be on the ballot", but that is simply not true; this Amendement would directly remove any mention of wether candidates run as an independent or a member of a party alltogether. The way this Amendement is written it also will not be the choice of a citizen to have their affiliation mentioned on the ballot, because the Constitution right now states "Each political party ... shall be allowed to register to be added to the ballot. Independents ... shall be allowed to register to be added to the ballot.". So to make it clear, this Amendement, if it were to pass, will de-legalize any mention of one's affiliation and indeed undermine, directly or undirectly, Thaecian rights, because this Amendement, if it were to pass, will remove this entire part from the Thaecian Constitution!
As of the situation now, candidates have to mention to the EC together with their declaration if they wish to chose to run under the banner of one or none party at all themselves. From your words you apparantly try to make it seem like people are being forced to run as a partymember, which is not only not true in practice but is also a ridiculous idea to begin with, so I honestly find it a bad argument.

Ashlawn, Pap sculgief, and Marvinville

The Republic of Marvinville

I support the amendments proposed by Dendrobium and if Amendment B does not pass, I will vote Nay on the Constitutional Amendment.

Ashlawn and Dendrobium

The Kingdom of Brototh

Marvinville wrote:I support the amendments proposed by Dendrobium and if Amendment B does not pass, I will vote Nay on the Constitutional Amendment.

I concur with Marvin.

Ashlawn and Dendrobium

«12. . .131132133134135136137. . .313314»