Wittenberg

The Ziu => The Hopper => Topic started by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 14, 2020, 04:45:08 PM

Title: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 14, 2020, 04:45:08 PM
WHEREAS Organic Law III.7 currently reads:

Quote
Section 7 Unless a province explicitly requests that Chancery conduct the election to the Senate seat for that province, the province shall be responsible for doing so, and shall certify to the Chancery that the result represents the will of the people. (53RZ18)

AND WHEREAS this includes a ridiculous Catch-22, in that a province without a functioning Government cannot make such a request, and will thus be given the responsibility to conduct an election which by that very fact it cannot conduct;

AND WHEREAS precisely this occurred in the elections for Senator from Cézembre and Maritiimi-Maxhestic accompanying the 55th Cosa election;

AND WHEREAS I honestly can't believe whoever wrote this section didn't anticipate this problem;


BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled
that Organic Law III.7 be amended to read as follows:

Quote
Every province's government shall be responsible for conducting the election to the Senate seat for that province. Such a government may delegate this responsibility to the Chancery by making a request to this effect. In case of a breakdown of provincial Government so that it can neither conduct the election nor make a request to the Chancery to do so, the Chancery shall conduct the election.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 14, 2020, 04:59:20 PM
For those not aware of the situation in Maritiimi-Maxhestic: the incumbent provincial Governor equivalent ("Grand General Secretary") has gone AWOL and thus could not communicate with the Chancery or get his own provincial officials organised. The incumbent provincial Secretary of State equivalent ("Maximally Magnificent Majordomo") had actually forgotten what the job entailed, and was rudely surprised to get a letter from the Chancery telling him to get the election going.

Collapse of provincial governments render the existing OrgLaw III.7 ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on July 14, 2020, 05:04:46 PM
This seems like a sensible idea.

Though it doesn't stop a situation like Vuode where a law was passed that seems almost designed to prevent anyone not fully up to date with provincial law from running, resulting in two unopposed elections in a way that seems wildly undemocratic to me.

To be honest, I'm quite disappointed with the way this law has turned out. Several provinces have made quite a mess of their provincial elections at some point in the last few years.

Fwiw, I do think such a request can be made by provincial law though, even when there isn't a functional government. In the case of Cézembre, I believe the constitutions requires the Sénéchal to make such a request. I think it's fair therefore to interpret this request as automatic, so the Chancery will conduct the elections there.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on July 14, 2020, 08:42:22 PM
Though it doesn't stop a situation like Vuode where a law was passed that seems almost designed to prevent anyone not fully up to date with provincial law from running, resulting in two unopposed elections in a way that seems wildly undemocratic to me.

Well, the whole issue in M-M was that the M3 wasn't up-to-date with provincial law; and I think that, unless we want to re-federalize Senäts elections, we have to accept that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Quote
To be honest, I'm quite disappointed with the way this law has turned out. Several provinces have made quite a mess of their provincial elections at some point in the last few years.

This is the problem with devolving functions to non-existent bodies. I'm not in favour of the NPW programme of abolishing the provinces altogether, but we need a merger or three desperately if we want them to be in charge of anything important.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Açafat del Val on July 20, 2020, 10:56:42 AM
What does a "breakdown of provincial Government" mean?

May I suggest the following instead?

Quote
Each province shall conduct by its own resources the election of each of its Senators as according to law, or may delegate this responsibility by law to the Chancery. In those cases when a province may be responsible for such an election but unable to carry through, whether for nonfeasance or the like, and when the inability shall have persisted and left inadequate time for other remedy, then the Chancery shall conduct the election on behalf of the province.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Açafat del Val on July 20, 2020, 11:04:45 AM
However, even having suggested that change, I might recommend that Senate elections be re-federalized altogether.

It seems needlessly burdensome on the Chancery that the SoS must know (or look up) eight different legal systems just to know whether a province does or does not conduct its own Senate election.

What is the opposition to this? Or, rather, why would Senate elections have been ever de-federalized?
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: C. M. Siervicül on August 05, 2020, 10:26:44 AM
However, even having suggested that change, I might recommend that Senate elections be re-federalized altogether.
Or as a compromise, allow the provinces to opt out of having the Chancery conduct their election, rather than requiring them to opt in. That way, the Chancery conducts the election by default. If a province has its act together and wants to conduct its own election, it can so notify the SoS. If there’s been a “breakdown of provincial government” then no such notification will be provided and the SoS will proceed to conduct the election without needing to inquire into the status of the political institutions of each province.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Eðo Grischun on August 05, 2020, 10:41:01 AM
However, even having suggested that change, I might recommend that Senate elections be re-federalized altogether.
Or as a compromise, allow the provinces to opt out of having the Chancery conduct their election, rather than requiring them to opt in. That way, the Chancery conducts the election by default. If a province has its act together and wants to conduct its own election, it can so notify the SoS. If there’s been a “breakdown of provincial government” then no such notification will be provided and the SoS will proceed to conduct the election without needing to inquire into the status of the political institutions of each province.

I might be remembering wrong, but wasn't that exactly how it used to work? I think one of the ModRad governments changed it from what you suggest to what we have now.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: C. M. Siervicül on August 05, 2020, 11:07:29 AM
I might be remembering wrong, but wasn't that exactly how it used to work? I think one of the ModRad governments changed it from what you suggest to what we have now.
That’s what I thought too, but I’m fuzzy on the details. I checked past versions of the OrgLaw on Wiki and at least as far as the Wiki versions go there was a change from exclusively Chancery-conducted elections to requiring the provinces to explicitly notify the Chancery if they want the election conducted by the Chancery in 2013. It may be that there were prior unsuccessful proposals that were different.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 05, 2020, 04:22:02 PM
Refederalisation of Senäts elections would be fine. Whichever gets broader support.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on August 05, 2020, 04:34:12 PM
Refederalisation of Senäts elections would be fine. Whichever gets broader support.

As the incoming SoS, I agree that re-federalizing Senäts elections would be prudent if only to avoid keeping up to date with provincial laws regarding this.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on August 05, 2020, 08:49:25 PM
I would not be in favor of banning provinces from holding Senate elections altogether. Perhaps we require provinces desiring to hold their own election to meet certain standards.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 09, 2020, 07:04:13 PM
I would not be in favor of banning provinces from holding Senate elections altogether. Perhaps we require provinces desiring to hold their own election to meet certain standards.

Okay, here are two different versions, one which preserves "Provinces may opt in to Chancery elections", and one that shifts to "Provinces may opt out of Chancery elections". I'm indifferent between the two.

Quote
1. Unless a province explicitly requests that Chancery conduct the election to the Senate seat for that province, the province shall be responsible for doing so, and shall certify to the Chancery that the result represents the will of the people.
OR:
1. The Chancery shall be responsible for elections to the Senäts, except where a Provincial Government makes a request to conduct the election to the Senate seat for that province. Such requests shall be granted except as provided in subsection 2 below.

2. The Secretary of State shall publish minimum standards for Senäts elections run by the Provinces. If the Chancery deems that these standards are not met in a certain Province at a particular election, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: C. M. Siervicül on August 09, 2020, 08:12:36 PM
Unless I’m missing something, the first option looks substantively the same as current law, except it eliminates the requirement that provinces certify their election results to the Chancery.

The first paragraph of the second option looks good to me, but I don’t see the need for the second paragraph. The Chancery doesn’t have responsibility for providing standards for and oversight of provincial elections under current law, so why add that (and only in the second option)?
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 09, 2020, 08:29:07 PM
Unless I’m missing something, the first option looks substantively the same as current law, except it eliminates the requirement that provinces certify their election results to the Chancery.

Fixed.

Quote
The first paragraph of the second option looks good to me, but I don’t see the need for the second paragraph.

... that's precisely what the LCC Leader proposed above, lol. And Senäts elections are of Kingdom importance so it is right for the Chancery to have a right of oversight/scrutiny which does not apply to provincial elections.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 27, 2020, 04:22:18 PM
Ha ha, I almost forgot about this bill and it doesn't seem like we came to a consensus on refederalizing Senäts elections or not. So I'm going to go with refederalising.

WHEREAS Organic Law III.7 currently reads:

Quote
Section 7 Unless a province explicitly requests that Chancery conduct the election to the Senate seat for that province, the province shall be responsible for doing so, and shall certify to the Chancery that the result represents the will of the people. (53RZ18)

AND WHEREAS this includes a ridiculous Catch-22, in that a province without a functioning Government cannot make such a request, and will thus be given the responsibility to conduct an election which by that very fact it cannot conduct;

AND WHEREAS precisely this occurred in the elections for Senator from Cézembre and Maritiimi-Maxhestic accompanying the 55th Cosa election;


BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled
that Organic Law III.7 be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Quote
1. The Chancery shall be responsible for elections to the Senäts, except where a Provincial Government makes a request to conduct the election of the Senator for that province. Such requests shall be granted, except as provided in subsection 2 below.

2. The Secretary of State shall publish minimum standards for Senäts elections run by the Provinces. If the Chancery deems that these standards are not met in a certain Province at a particular election, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 29, 2020, 06:28:00 AM
D:na Seneschal:

The draft of this bill that was available until two minutes before you Clarked this one was significantly different.  It was essentially impossible for me to provide any feedback or evaluate this draft in those two minutes.  Please don't do this in the future.

I am aware that you had been working on a couple of other versions and had posted this one as a possibility, but it would be difficult for me to responsibly scrutinize every possible version of every bill at times.  I can completely understand if something is an emergency or the like, but as far as I can tell, it makes literally no difference if this bill is submitted now or in two months' time.  Under these circumstances and considering the changes, we should take our time and get it right.  Thank you.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on October 29, 2020, 09:38:58 AM
D:na Seneschal:

The draft of this bill that was available until two minutes before you Clarked this one was significantly different.  It was essentially impossible for me to provide any feedback or evaluate this draft in those two minutes.  Please don't do this in the future.

I am aware that you had been working on a couple of other versions and had posted this one as a possibility, but it would be difficult for me to responsibly scrutinize every possible version of every bill at times.  I can completely understand if something is an emergency or the like, but as far as I can tell, it makes literally no difference if this bill is submitted now or in two months' time.  Under these circumstances and considering the changes, we should take our time and get it right.  Thank you.

To be fair, I haven't entirely decided on whether this bill will be published in the Clark. I'm determining if the original text and the Clarked text are radically different enough to be two different proposals.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 29, 2020, 10:40:58 AM
Thank you for your good work executing your responsibilities, S:reu Secretar d'Estat, as always.  I'm not weighing in on the merits of the bill or this particular hiccup either way, but I thought it was a good time to emphasize the point (rather than ignoring it and having it continue).
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 29, 2020, 04:42:12 PM
The "revised text" of this bill was suggested more than two months ago (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=359.msg2997#msg2997) and attracted no adverse comment. This revised wording has been discussed with the Leader of the Opposition who has given his approval.

In broader terms, there may be an issue that things can stay in the Hopper indefinitely, and IMHO just be dragged up to be Clarked at a moment's notice, stunning anyone who might then scramble to give feedback. Perhaps change:

Quote
El Lex H.6.4. If a legislative proposal has remained in the “The Hopper” for more than 59 days, the Secretary of State may remove it.

to "shall"?
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on October 29, 2020, 05:50:29 PM
I was kind of taking the long view and not intending on removing bills from the hopper that pre-existed my appointment as SoS.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: xpb on October 30, 2020, 07:40:40 AM

2. The Secretary of State shall publish minimum standards for Senäts elections run by the Provinces. If the Chancery deems that these standards are not met in a certain Province at a particular election, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.


Based upon other items recently hoppered, the standards set by any particular S.O.S. might attempt to overturn provincial voting procedures, such as adding some type of ranked choice voting with instant runoff when the province prefers something else, such as a plurality, an official separate runoff for clear majority, or even a lottery among candidates.

The minimum standards should be something along the lines of that a quorum among citizens of the province taking part in a discussion of an election shall constitute an impetus towards such an election (should there not be a functioning local legislative body) but those S.O.S. standards should not further intrude on provincial autonomy which may include what the province defines as specific terms and procedures in the constitution or legal code of said province.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 30, 2020, 11:35:59 AM
I can't say I'm a fan of assigning the Chancery the task of publishing election standards and then deciding who is in compliance with them, either -- the cort intervention seems like it's almost besides the point.  The main issue is that this is making all provincial elections subordinate to the Chancery, to which they must defer.  I understand the impulse to centralize power in a few controlled institutions, but I'm not sure it's wise when we can think more carefully and avoid it.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on October 30, 2020, 02:26:18 PM
I'm not sure I like the idea of having to publish standards either.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 30, 2020, 02:55:40 PM

Based upon other items recently hoppered, the standards set by any particular S.O.S. might attempt to overturn provincial voting procedures, such as adding some type of ranked choice voting with instant runoff when the province prefers something else, such as a plurality, an official separate runoff for clear majority, or even a lottery among candidates.

All things which are currently illegal. Organic Law III.8 makes Instant Runoff Voting compulsory.

As to the wider question of standards, let's refocus on the problem this bill is supposed to fix: a Province is supposed to run an election, but doesn't/can't do so because of an internal collapse of provincial government. By setting standards, the Chancery is supposed to give an indication of in what circumstances it will intervene to take over. If we remove "standards", then we're in a position where the Chancery can just ask the Cort to let it take over and the Cort only has its own standards of what's fair or democratic to abide by. I'm not opposed to that but I thought others might be.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 30, 2020, 03:06:51 PM
Let me restate the issues here:

1) this bill is meant to prevent a situation where a Province is supposed to elect a Senator, but doesn't because its government is disorganized or non-existent.
2) one way of doing it would be total refederalisation of Senäts elections (the Chancery to do them all). The Opposition Leader is opposed to this.
3) the current amendment provides:
- conditional refederalization (a Province can still conduct its own Senäts election if it wants, but the Chancery is the default)
- the Chancery must provide standards by which it will step in and ask for a Cort Order if a Provincialised Senäts election is becoming inoperative, it can't just take an election back off a Province without good reason.

Would any of the people agonizing above prefer the following wording of part 2?

Quote
2. In the event that a Senäts election conducted by a Provincial Government appears likely to fail to proceed, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 30, 2020, 09:14:11 PM
Okay, after consultation with the SoS, I have decided that below is the version of the bill to be Clarked. Thanks to cxhn. Brigă and the Regent, their comments were helpful and improved things.



WHEREAS Organic Law III.7 currently reads:

Quote
Section 7 Unless a province explicitly requests that Chancery conduct the election to the Senate seat for that province, the province shall be responsible for doing so, and shall certify to the Chancery that the result represents the will of the people. (53RZ18)

AND WHEREAS this includes a ridiculous Catch-22, in that a province without a functioning Government cannot make such a request, and will thus be given the responsibility to conduct an election which by that very fact it cannot conduct;

AND WHEREAS precisely this occurred in the elections for Senator from Cézembre and Maritiimi-Maxhestic accompanying the 55th Cosa election;


BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled
that Organic Law III.7 be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

Quote
1. The Chancery shall be responsible for elections to the Senäts, except where a Provincial Government makes a request to conduct the election of the Senator for that province. Such requests shall be granted, except as provided in subsection 2 below.

2. In the event that a Senäts election conducted by a Provincial Government appears likely to fail to proceed, the Chancery may request a Cort injunction allowing the Chancery to assume control of the Senäts election in that Province.

[/quote]
Title: Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 30, 2020, 09:43:29 PM
I am comfortable with this wording.  Thank you for the revisions.  I will note further only that the reference to M-M is not accurate, inasmuch as I remember -- there was a functioning provincial government throughout the election.  You may wish to strike those few words and only refer to Cézembre.