|
|
Post by Culture of Life on Jun 11, 2020 19:48:25 GMT -5
So the revised Constitution says, "All bills shall originate in the Senate" (RTL Const. art III, sec. 12). I disagree with that provision. That said, I'll step out on a limb and assert that Assembly members (AMs) have the right to discuss issues of regional governance, provided the Senate ultimately proposes the bill. I bring to the Assembly's attention two matters for discussion: - (1) The size of the Senate and its method of election;
- (2) The method for electing the Speaker of the Assembly.
The relevant constitutional provisions are: - "The number of senators and the method of their election shall be determined by law" (RTL Const. art. VII, sec. 3).
- "The presiding officer of the Assembly shall be called the Speaker. The Assembly shall elect the Speaker using a method previously established by law" (RTL Const. art. III, sec. 9).
For the Senate, I wish to discuss cumulative voting, and I believe three senators would be best. For the Speaker, I wish to discuss approval voting. I think the Assembly's Speaker should follow the tradition of impartiality common to parliamentary systems and opposite the tradition of partisan speakerships in the United States. To this end, I think approval voting would produce consensus. Senatorial elections and speakership elections could happen at the same time and on the same ballot -- every three months. |
|
Imperii Ecclesia
Army Member 
Posts: 45
Nation in Right to Life: Imperii Ecclesia
|
Post by Imperii Ecclesia on Jul 3, 2020 14:45:04 GMT -5
I agree on your points, COL.
A non-partisan Speaker would be nice to have, in my opinion (or at least a person who does not operate in a partisan manner, not necessarily a citizen who is not a member of the party. Approval voting would work for the selection of the Speaker.
Cumulative voting sounds good. Point cumulative or equal and even cumulative voting?
The same ballot sounds fine to me.
EDIT: Have I lost my citizenship, and should I not post here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Culture of Life on Jul 3, 2020 16:57:13 GMT -5
Cumulative voting sounds good. Point cumulative or equal and even cumulative voting? I was thinking three seats and three votes per citizen, distributed according to the citizen's preference. EDIT: Have I lost my citizenship, and should I not post here? You're still a citizen, but you need to update your display group. nsrighttolife.proboards.com/page/faq |
|
Napoleon IV
Member
Posts: 14
Nation in Right to Life: La France Bonapartiste
|
Post by Napoleon IV on Jul 3, 2020 18:54:02 GMT -5
For the Senate, I wish to discuss cumulative voting, and I believe three senators would be best. For the Speaker, I wish to discuss approval voting. I think the Assembly's Speaker should follow the tradition of impartiality common to parliamentary systems and opposite the tradition of partisan speakerships in the United States. To this end, I think approval voting would produce consensus. Senatorial elections and speakership elections could happen at the same time and on the same ballot -- every three months. Why would you use one method for senators, and another for Speaker? What are the comparative advantages in the context of each respective contest? |
|
|
|
Post by Culture of Life on Jul 4, 2020 2:57:52 GMT -5
For the Senate, I wish to discuss cumulative voting, and I believe three senators would be best. For the Speaker, I wish to discuss approval voting. I think the Assembly's Speaker should follow the tradition of impartiality common to parliamentary systems and opposite the tradition of partisan speakerships in the United States. To this end, I think approval voting would produce consensus. Senatorial elections and speakership elections could happen at the same time and on the same ballot -- every three months. Why would you use one method for senators, and another for Speaker? What are the comparative advantages in the context of each respective contest? You need a multi-winner election method for the Senate and a single-winner election method for the Speaker. I think cumulative voting would be good for senators because it fosters proportional representation, it's easy to understand, it's easy to count votes, and it doesn't discriminate against independent candidates. For the Speaker, I think approval voting could promote consensus. To win the speakership, a candidate would have to be widely liked in the region, having the highest approval rating of all the candidates. |
|
Napoleon IV
Member
Posts: 14
Nation in Right to Life: La France Bonapartiste
|
Post by Napoleon IV on Jul 4, 2020 10:24:45 GMT -5
Why would you use one method for senators, and another for Speaker? What are the comparative advantages in the context of each respective contest? You need a multi-winner election method for the Senate and a single-winner election method for the Speaker. I think cumulative voting would be good for senators because it fosters proportional representation, it's easy to understand, it's easy to count votes, and it doesn't discriminate against independent candidates. For the Speaker, I think approval voting could promote consensus. To win the speakership, a candidate would have to be widely liked in the region, having the highest approval rating of all the candidates. So the Senate is not chosen based on party lists? The individual candidates have to run directly? Also, how are these elections carried out? Do NS polls allow for cumulative and approval voting? Or do they take place through some other medium? |
|
|
|
Post by Culture of Life on Jul 4, 2020 13:35:53 GMT -5
You need a multi-winner election method for the Senate and a single-winner election method for the Speaker. I think cumulative voting would be good for senators because it fosters proportional representation, it's easy to understand, it's easy to count votes, and it doesn't discriminate against independent candidates. For the Speaker, I think approval voting could promote consensus. To win the speakership, a candidate would have to be widely liked in the region, having the highest approval rating of all the candidates. So the Senate is not chosen based on party lists? The individual candidates have to run directly? Also, how are these elections carried out? Do NS polls allow for cumulative and approval voting? Or do they take place through some other medium? Since the recent constitutional amendment, the Senate is elected according to whatever method the Congress, through law, chooses. If the Congress wants to pass a law mandating a plurality vote, it can do so. If it wants to pass a law mandating a proportional vote, it can do so. Or anything in between. Elections for the Senate and the Speaker take place on this board -- in the forum titled "Elections & Campaigns." |
|
Napoleon IV
Member
Posts: 14
Nation in Right to Life: La France Bonapartiste
|
Post by Napoleon IV on Jul 4, 2020 16:51:44 GMT -5
Elections for the Senate and the Speaker take place on this board -- in the forum titled "Elections & Campaigns." So elections are not held via secret ballot then? |
|
|
|
Post by Culture of Life on Jul 4, 2020 20:51:36 GMT -5
Elections for the Senate and the Speaker take place on this board -- in the forum titled "Elections & Campaigns." So elections are not held via secret ballot then? Yes, open ballots are used. |
|
Napoleon IV
Member
Posts: 14
Nation in Right to Life: La France Bonapartiste
|
Post by Napoleon IV on Jul 4, 2020 21:02:27 GMT -5
So elections are not held via secret ballot then? Yes, open ballots are used. Oh...that's too bad. Was that a deliberate choice or just a limitation of the technology here? |
|
|
|
Post by Culture of Life on Jul 5, 2020 16:14:44 GMT -5
Yes, open ballots are used. Oh...that's too bad. Was that a deliberate choice or just a limitation of the technology here? We made the choice primarily for technical reasons. It's easier to monitor voters and prevent fraud with an open ballot system. I suppose, if we wanted to keep votes secret, we could use ProBoards' personal messaging system. It includes the same information administrators can see in members' posts. A secondary reason for open balloting is that it gives candidates an opportunity to campaign based on the running vote tally. In past presidential elections, for example, we've had third-place candidates drop out during the second day of voting and ask supporters to switch their votes to one of the top two candidates during the third and final day of voting. Open balloting aids strategic voting, and I can't remember a president being elected with less than 50% support. |
|
|
|
Post by United Massachusetts on Jul 5, 2020 22:54:29 GMT -5
Hello, all! Apologies for my absence.
I'd like to speak to both matters put up for debate here.
Firstly, I think the Senate should be three person, given that we hardly could field three candidates for Senate this time around. It's my opinion that we'd be able to have competitive elections for a three person Senate, not for a five person Senate. Since legislation must be initiated in the Senate, I believe that there should be a provision for the removal of inactive Senators. Then again, some people criticised me when I used that provision to unilaterally dissolve the Senate and seize complete power, so.... maybe we should figure out a better system there.
As for the election of Speakers, I believe this is a matter best resolved by simple majority vote. Let the Senators decide amongst themselves. Majority wins. Nothing too too harsh. They should be able to appoint a Speaker just as they would pass any other measure -- by majority vote.
|
|
Phydios
Member
Posts: 16 
Nation in Right to Life: Phydios
|
Post by Phydios on Jul 7, 2020 9:52:49 GMT -5
Hello, all! Apologies for my absence. I'd like to speak to both matters put up for debate here. Firstly, I think the Senate should be three person, given that we hardly could field three candidates for Senate this time around. It's my opinion that we'd be able to have competitive elections for a three person Senate, not for a five person Senate. Since legislation must be initiated in the Senate, I believe that there should be a provision for the removal of inactive Senators. Then again, some people criticised me when I used that provision to unilaterally dissolve the Senate and seize complete power, so.... maybe we should figure out a better system there. As for the election of Speakers, I believe this is a matter best resolved by simple majority vote. Let the Senators decide amongst themselves. Majority wins. Nothing too too harsh. They should be able to appoint a Speaker just as they would pass any other measure -- by majority vote. I agree with UM. We had a five-person Senate before, and it resulted in ultimately uncompetitive elections, so we eventually shrunk it back to three people. Expanding it now would be an even worse idea than before. I also agree with appointing the Speaker via simple majority vote. |
|
