Constitutional Amendment: Senators-at-large

[Bootstoots]

Note to all people looking at this thread: We need 34 yes votes to pass this. If you see this, PLEASE vote on it.
This is a poll to amend the Constitution C.2.a as follows:

a. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each of whom 
are a Leader responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of a province.  
[B]The Vice President shall be the President of the Senate, and may cast a tie-breaking vote there.
	1.  If at any time there are fewer than three Provincial Governors, Senators-at-Large 
shall be elected so that the Senate has three members. [/B]

This will require the support of a majority of the people and the approval of the Senate (Eyrei) to be adopted. This poll will be open until quorum is met. Relevant discussion can be found here.

 

[Octavian X]

Note: Article F of the constitution states that a majority of the Congress vote YES on this amendment. Since the Congress is determined by the highest number of votes from the last election, the number of YES votes need is 34.

This amendment also requires the Senate (eyrei) to sign off.

 

[Bootstoots]

Ok, well, I'll prepare for a long haul. I will advertise this poll next election while telling of support for the candidates.

 

[Almightyjosh]

No, abolutely not. The senator-at-large idea is fine, but totally unnessisary as we already HAVE three provinces. The idea of the VP being the leader of the Senate is proposterous. The senate is a distinct arm of Government from the executive and should be allowed to act independantly.

I am sick of people constantly encroaching on Senate powers (no this is not the first time) because of some mis-guided notion that the VP 'needs something to do', As we have seen, there are plenty of roles for a dedicated VP to take on, but THIS should not, must not be one of them. If anyone is to 'lead' the Senate, that person must be from within the Senate, not an external power. The Senate leads itself, it doesn't need any help.

I urge all citizens to vote down this amendment as it will significantly harm the independance of the Senate and do nothing to help the process of constitutional reform.

NO

 

[Bootstoots]

AJ, we don't have three provinces yet. They have not been approved by the citizenry (CT's poll was rejected). I will change "provinces" to "functioning provinces". And also, what is wrong with the Vice President leading the senate? I see no problem with it, they would not have much real power, as they could only break ties. And, why would a senator object to being led by the VP? I encourage all people to support this amendment.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
No, abolutely not. The senator-at-large idea is fine, but totally unnessisary as we already HAVE three provinces. The idea of the VP being the leader of the Senate is proposterous. The senate is a distinct arm of Government from the executive and should be allowed to act independantly.

I am sick of people constantly encroaching on Senate powers (no this is not the first time) because of some mis-guided notion that the VP 'needs something to do', As we have seen, there are plenty of roles for a dedicated VP to take on, but THIS should not, must not be one of them. If anyone is to 'lead' the Senate, that person must be from within the Senate, not an external power. The Senate leads itself, it doesn't need any help.

I urge all citizens to vote down this amendment as it will significantly harm the independance of the Senate and do nothing to help the process of constitutional reform.

NO

It has always seemed to me that governors have a great deal of power as it is. The Senate is not and should not be the deciding power when determining new laws, as they are not elected with this function in mind. I think adding someone with a more 'executive' view on things to the mix would be quite helpful.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by eyrei


It has always seemed to me that governors have a great deal of power as it is. The Senate is not and should not be the deciding power when determining new laws, as they are not elected with this function in mind. I think adding someone with a more 'executive' view on things to the mix would be quite helpful.

That is a matter for a final poll on the issue that Shaitan will probably post soon. This has nothing to do with it. Also, will you sign off on this, Eyrei?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I vote NO on this proposal, as I feel there is no need for Senators-at-Large. I do agree with giving the VP the tie-breaking vote, although I don't know if I would call him(her) Head of the Senate.

This will ensure that we continue to make informed early-game choices for both VP and Governor.

 

[DaveShack]

My vote is YES, for the following reasons.

There are two issues here and it seems that some are getting them mixed up. First the issue of the VP having a tie-breaking vote. If the senate vote is a tie, there are four possible ways to deal with that situation.

1. Tie means vote PASSES
2. Tie means vote FAILS
3. VP casts tiebreaking vote
4. The issue is UNRESOLVED
   [/list=1]
   
   Giving the VP a tiebreaking vote is the most deterministic of the options. A majority is guaranteed on every issue. BTW I'm not even sure what would happen with the current constitution...
   
   The other issue deals with the possibility that a single individual could have enough power to hold things up indefinitely by effectively vetoing everything that goes through the senate. In the case of the current amendment, if our single governor votes against the amendment then the poll is meaningless, even if 100% (-1) voted yes.
   
   Rules like the proposed amendment are only needed in the rare instances where an impasse is reached. Hopefully that will never occur but it is wise to have a backup plan.

 

[Shaitan]

This would probably be more palatable if the At-Large seats were there regardless of province count. The At-Large Senators would then be ready to take gubernatorial seats when provinces were defined mid-term.

 

[Bootstoots]

Shaitan, the amendment allows for senators-at-large if there are fewer than three governors. The President would be encouraged to appoint the senators-at-large as governors.

 

[Shaitan]

Yes, but why only when there are less than 3? Governors are the only leadership positions that have a regular appointment mid-term. If the election of Senators-at-large was not dependent upon the number of provinces then there would always be some Governors "on deck" to fill positions during the term.

 

[Bootstoots]

That is a good idea. What if I changed it to 2 senators-at-large, all the time. Do I have to repoll this to do that?

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by bootstoots
That is a good idea. What if I changed it to 2 senators-at-large, all the time. Do I have to repoll this to do that?

Can't imagine any way to change it in mid-poll and remain fair to those who have already voted.

Open note to my fellow PSC Commissioners: what is our position on withdrawing a poll prior to its completion, particularily in the case where there is a fixed quorum requirement?

 

[Bootstoots]

I would say that I could do it anyway, if it was probably going to fail and circumstances changed.

 

[Shaitan]

The easiest way is to just leave it to die on the vine. Start a new poll with the new criteria then post here with that link, stating that this current proposal no longer has your support and ask people to vote in the new one.

 

[Almightyjosh]

This poll has been rated by the PSC and found to be FAIR, congrats

The Assessment