Superfluous Elections Prevention Act

RPI

RPI

TNPer
The following proposal is intended to prevent multiple elections for the same office from occurring sequentially after the other:

Superfluous Elections Prevention Act:
TNP Legal Code Chapter 4, Section 5, Clause 21, shall be amended to read:

TNP Legal Code Chapter 4:
A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position, unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to [two weeks] before the beginning of the next scheduled election cycle for that office.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
So theoreticly, if someone would resign less than 3 weeks away from a new election, who would finish the remainder of the term? some functions like delegate are critical functions and cannot afford an interruption of service.
 
TNP Constitution:
In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
Click to expand...
Everyone in the line of succession moves up one position, until the next scheduled general elections.
 
Yes - it introduces a contradictory definition of term into the legal code. If one's term is up at the beginning of elections, then who serves in the position for the ten or fifteen days of elections themselves? It also directly conflicts with clause 21.

I would suggest the following language, as an amendment and not an insertion:
21. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position, unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to two weeks before the beginning of the scheduled election cycle for that office.
Click to expand...
 
SillyString:
Yes - it introduces a contradictory definition of term into the legal code. If one's term is up at the beginning of elections, then who serves in the position for the ten or fifteen days of elections themselves? It also directly conflicts with clause 21.

I would suggest the following language, as an amendment and not an insertion:
21. A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position, unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to two weeks before the beginning of the scheduled election cycle for that office.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I see your point, and I accept your suggested proposal. The proposal shall now read:

Superfluous Elections Prevention Act:
TNP Legal Code Chapter 4, Section 5, Clause 21, shall be amended to read:

TNP Legal Code Chapter 4:
A special election will be held in the event of a vacancy in any elected office or position, unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to [two weeks] before the beginning of the next scheduled election cycle for that office.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I will update the original post.
 
You have only just proposed this. I suggest you wait longer so that everyone who wants to has time to comment.
 
How it works is the introduction phase and when the bill sponsor is satisfied they may motion for formal debate. The Speakers office may put a motion in formal debate if it feels enough discussion had occured. After the formal debate period the bill can no longer be amended and the speaker may schedule a vote on the proposal.
 
The introduction informal discussion phase is just that. An inital phase to see who is open to changes And making compromises. The five day formal debate phase is to fine tune it and clean it up and make last minute changes/fix mistakes.
 
RPI, as discussed with you through PM, I support this amendment. It should help us avoid unnecessary elections that only slow down the functioning of the region.

~ Tomb
 
It looks like you have very good support from your regionmates. Good job. I'm still on the fence, though, so I'll have to mull it over some more...
 
There is one more issue I would like to address, I am unsure of how many weeks the amendment should require there to be before the beginning of the next election cycle; it currently says two weeks, but I would like input from others just to see if that's a good number.
...unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to [two weeks] before the beginning of the next scheduled election cycle for that office.
Click to expand...
 
Seeing that that issue can be solved in formal debate, I move for the proposal to go to vote.
 
I see "Informal Debate" as the place where the bill is edited for all of the main elements, while Formal Debate is where loopholes are closed and editing on the grammar and all are fixed.
 
This bill is now in Formal Debate, which will last for five days, after which it will be scheduled for vote.
 
This is the only issue, at present, that I intend to address during Formal Debate:
...unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to [two weeks] before the beginning of the next scheduled election cycle for that office.
Click to expand...

Please indicate whether you are, or are not, in favor of the legislation requiring there to be more than [two weeks] before the beginning of the next scheduled election cycle of an office after the conclusion of the special election for there to be a special election. If you are not in favor, please give an amount of time that you believe would best replace [two weeks].
 
RPI:
I move for the proposal to go to vote.
Click to expand...
Anyone want to second my motion? :tb2:
Click to expand...

Just to note, a second isn't needed. Proposals go into formal debate at the request of the author.

I'm honestly still reluctant about this. I don't see a need for it - the recent bonanza of elections was a fluke, and I don't think we should legislate just based on flukes.

Another part of my reluctance is that I don't think succession is properly accounted for for the AG's office, for example - there's no clause that tasks any deputy AG with serving as AG in a vacancy, and if the AG is mid trial or something a four-week vacancy (2 weeks plus election time) would be a massive derailment.

Edit: Longer than two weeks, I would definitely oppose. Two is the maximum I could be comfortable with.
 
SillyString:
RPI:
I move for the proposal to go to vote.
Click to expand...
Anyone want to second my motion? :tb2:
Click to expand...

Just to note, a second isn't needed. Proposals go into formal debate at the request of the author.

I'm honestly still reluctant about this. I don't see a need for it - the recent bonanza of elections was a fluke, and I don't think we should legislate just based on flukes.

Another part of my reluctance is that I don't think succession is properly accounted for for the AG's office, for example - there's no clause that tasks any deputy AG with serving as AG in a vacancy, and if the AG is mid trial or something a four-week vacancy (2 weeks plus election time) would be a massive derailment.

Edit: Longer than two weeks, I would definitely oppose. Two is the maximum I could be comfortable with.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from, but said fluke could happen again in any election, and my reason for making this proposal is to prevent that fluke from occurring in any other elections. As for the part about the AG, what if I were to propose legislation that would allow for a deputy AG or assistant AG to succeed to the AG's office in the case of such a vacancy? I would probably introduce that kind of legislation in a different proposal, as it would not have direct relevance to the special elections, and so as not to overcomplicate this current proposal.
 
SillyString:
RPI:
I move for the proposal to go to vote.
Click to expand...
Anyone want to second my motion? :tb2:
Click to expand...

Just to note, a second isn't needed. Proposals go into formal debate at the request of the author.

I'm honestly still reluctant about this. I don't see a need for it - the recent bonanza of elections was a fluke, and I don't think we should legislate just based on flukes.

Another part of my reluctance is that I don't think succession is properly accounted for for the AG's office, for example - there's no clause that tasks any deputy AG with serving as AG in a vacancy, and if the AG is mid trial or something a four-week vacancy (2 weeks plus election time) would be a massive derailment.

Edit: Longer than two weeks, I would definitely oppose. Two is the maximum I could be comfortable with.
Click to expand...
Whoops, I told him that they required a second...where did I get that idea from? :unsure:
 
Bootsie:
SillyString:
RPI:
I move for the proposal to go to vote.
Click to expand...
Anyone want to second my motion? :tb2:
Click to expand...
Just to note, a second isn't needed. Proposals go into formal debate at the request of the author.
Click to expand...
Whoops, I told him that they required a second...where did I get that idea from? :unsure:
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was wondering about that. Oh, well; it has made it into formal debate anyhow. That's all that matters.
 
RPI:
I see where you're coming from, but said fluke could happen again in any election, and my reason for making this proposal is to prevent that fluke from occurring in any other elections.
Click to expand...
It would be very very difficult to arrange for three CMEOs to resign or disappear at approximately the same time two weeks before a general election. :P

If all that had happened this time was a special justice election followed by a general justice election, I wouldn't think of that as a problem.
 
SillyString:
If all that had happened this time was a special justice election followed by a general justice election, I wouldn't think of that as a problem.
Click to expand...
I would think of it as a problem if I was the Justice elected in the special election, and I was to serve only about a week until the next election for my position.
 
RPI:
SillyString:
If all that had happened this time was a special justice election followed by a general justice election, I wouldn't think of that as a problem.
Click to expand...
I would think of it as a problem if I was the Justice elected in the special election, and I was to serve only about a week until the next election for my position.
Click to expand...
I'll grant that it's a mild hassle, but I don't think that's the same as a problem. The Court doesn't have anything time-sensitive on its plate most of the time, including in this case, so all a justice is doing is sitting there - that is, having to run for reelection doesn't take away from performing their duties as justice.

Maybe if there's a case, maybe if it's time sensitive, then it could be elevated from a hassle to annoying, but I'm still not sure there's a case for it being a problem.
 
RPI:
This is the only issue, at present, that I intend to address during Formal Debate:
...unless the election would be unable to conclude prior to [two weeks] before the beginning of the next scheduled election cycle for that office.
Click to expand...

Please indicate whether you are, or are not, in favor of the legislation requiring there to be more than [two weeks] before the beginning of the next scheduled election cycle of an office after the conclusion of the special election for there to be a special election. If you are not in favor, please give an amount of time that you believe would best replace [two weeks].
Click to expand...
I would appreciate everyone's input,
Thanks
 
As this bill is a small amendment, and there is no real need to debate for any changes, I ask Speaker Bootsie to shorten Formal Debate on the proposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top