Perland
Former Members
New flag be lit son
Posts: 63
|
Post by Perland on Jul 20, 2017 15:03:12 GMT -5
I don't really see any difference from the original amendment besides adding a needless word or two..?]
Edit I: In fact, I compared this and the section of the constitution corresponding to it side by side, there are no changes lol.
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Jul 20, 2017 22:24:29 GMT -5
This bill is not official and has no debating date or voting date. Please refrain from replying until the election is over and dates are set.
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Jul 23, 2017 7:25:41 GMT -5
Forum Debate on Monday until Friday. 24-28th
Live Discord Debate on Thursday. 27th
|
|
Perland
Former Members
New flag be lit son
Posts: 63
|
Post by Perland on Jul 24, 2017 10:37:00 GMT -5
This seems unneeded..? All I can tell is that this turns into a law, and that is foolish.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jul 24, 2017 12:00:00 GMT -5
I echo Perland- this seems completely unnecessary.
Our old Constitution was hastily written and required numerous immediate amendments. This made it difficult to navigate its text and determine what was applicable. To amend our new Constitution in a trivial way just after it passes sets a bit of a ridiculous precedent.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jul 24, 2017 16:25:15 GMT -5
I don't share your sentiment; this amendment is necessary so that we don't have any SCJ election confusion like we had this time. This amendment makes it abundantly clear that there are three separate seats/offices on the Supreme Court, to be elected concurrently. It also makes sure that the election of the SCJs conforms to the constitutional Election Procedure, which demands only one vote per office; allowing voters to have three votes for what was considered this time as one office would technically violate the Constitution, unless it is mandated that the ballot list three separate offices--which this amendment does.
It's a small change, I grant you; but it's a necessary one that shouldn't set a "ridiculous precedent".
|
|
Perland
Former Members
New flag be lit son
Posts: 63
|
Post by Perland on Jul 24, 2017 17:29:29 GMT -5
I don't share your sentiment; this amendment is necessary so that we don't have any SCJ election confusion like we had this time. This amendment makes it abundantly clear that there are three separate seats/offices on the Supreme Court, to be elected concurrently. It also makes sure that the election of the SCJs conforms to the constitutional Election Procedure, which demands only one vote per office; allowing voters to have three votes for what was considered this time as one office would technically violate the Constitution, unless it is mandated that the ballot list three separate offices--which this amendment does. It's a small change, I grant you; but it's a necessary one that shouldn't set a "ridiculous precedent". I legitimately can't see anything you changed. I compared them side by side (the Article you want to amend and this), and I legit notice no change.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jul 24, 2017 17:45:45 GMT -5
Yes Vista, but I think what you maintain is an issue is only one if one doesn't also apply a little logic to one's interpretation of the Constitution. The one vote per office procedure you cite logically means one vote per vacant office. We wouldn't be having an election if the office wasn't legally vacant by the end of the election.
Just because the office shares the same name doesn't mean that the electorate should be deprived of their democratic right to vote for those whom they think should fill all vacancies. You're entirely too caught up on the fact that these three separate offices have the same name.
I'd say that your interpretation is hyper literal, but it's actually just illogically slanted. Think of an office as a literal empty office that needs to be filled by an elected official. The Justices don't share a single office- they each get one. Just because three of those offices are labelled "Supreme Court Justice" doesn't mean that electorate wouldn't have a vote for each office.
Three vacant offices x One vote per office = Three total votes.
|
|
|
Post by Vista Major, MP on Jul 26, 2017 14:22:04 GMT -5
My amendment adds the clause "serving in separate but operationally equal seats" to the Section, it being the pivotal change in this amendment. I get the idea for this amendment from Libertatem's Senate, who has distinct Seats 1-5. If we adopt this for our SC, I consider it an election problem solved. It doesn't make much sense to allow voters to have three votes unless they labeled them 1-3; else, how would we know which people they wanted in each SCJ seat, lest we consider the SC a singular council? My interpretation is very literal because I don't want to leave anything to chance, as illogical as such a pursuit may seem.
|
|
|
Post by Continental Commonwealths on Jul 26, 2017 17:44:34 GMT -5
Vista, I haven't any idea how you're making the inferences that you are.
You ask how we're supposed to know who the voters would like to fill each vacant Supreme Justice seat, but the answer is so simple: it's the three people they voted for. There's no need for them to indicate which seat, nor is there any need to rank them. There's no Seat 1, Seat 2, and Seat 3- there are just three vacancies that are filled by the three candidates that receive the most votes.
The Constitution states that three Supreme Justices are to be democratically elected (Article 7, Section III) and that positions that will be voted on include the Supreme Court Justices (Article 8, Section I). The plural in this latter section indicates that the number of votes the voter receives is greater than one while the former section clarifies that this number is three- one for each of the Justice position. However, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention that these positions are to be elected individually. Therefore, the proper process is that candidates run for this office, each candidate appears on the ballot, and the voter can vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies.
I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the Constitution isn't literal but slanted. The ballot for the last election was incorrect when it said that voters received only a single vote for each list of candidates. I'm confident that subsequent elections will be held properly.
Now, for your amendment. Having the Supreme Court split into three separate seats allows for over-politicization and diminished democracy. As it stands now, each voter chooses their three preferred candidates from the entire slate. Those with the highest voter tallies win as they have the confidence of the largest number of total voters.
By dividing the seats, you create three contests where candidates are compared to the few rather than the whole slate. Candidates will choose their seats strategically and instead of the voters getting the choice of their preferred candidates overall the electorate may be forced to make a choice between two or three candidates they do not prefer to take office because those are the ony two or three that ran for that particular seat.
We have a process in place. It works just fine when followed correctly. What's more, this process maximizes voter choice and doesn't amend a new and functioning Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Jaslandia on Jul 26, 2017 21:10:41 GMT -5
I'm with ContComm and Perl on this one; I don't think something this small is worthy of an amendment, and I think the confusion can be resolved without a small amendment like this. Denounced
|
|
|
Post by Unfallious on Jul 27, 2017 7:53:16 GMT -5
I dunno sometimes I like to paste aspects of the constitution and shift a word or two and pretend I wrote it.
Oh wait, I did write it. Nothing changed here. Denounced.
|
|
MP Oelesa
Former Members
I'm in retirement but I'll continue to cast my vote.
Posts: 29
|
Post by MP Oelesa on Jul 28, 2017 16:08:40 GMT -5
Debating has ended. A vote will be made soon.
|
|