The Senators are People, not Parties Amendment

[Ian Plätschisch]

The Senators Are People, not Parties Amendment 

WHEREAS The number one duty of any senator is to represent their province, and

WHEREAS Party politics gets in the way of this duty, and

WHEREAS There is already plenty of party politics in the Cosa, so it is not needed in the Senate, and

WHEREAS Voters who vote for a party in a Senate election may not even know who they are actually voting for, and

WHEREAS This is problematic, because provinces are represented by individuals in the Senate, not by parties


THEREFORE, Org.IV.5, which currently reads:

A political party may endorse a candidate for any vacant Senate seat. In the event that a voter specifies that party as his choice for that Senate seat and the election is conducted by the Chancery, his vote shall be counted for the candidate so endorsed.

is hereby repealed.


Noi urent q'estadra så;
Ian Plätschisch (MC-MRPT)
Glüc da Dhi (MC-MRPT)
Eðo Grischun (Sen-VD)

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I do not know the exact numbers, but I think many a voter votes for the party, and not for a specific person. This party votes is, again: only so far as I am informed, interpreted by the Chancery to mean I vote for the person whom this party endorses.

While I agree that Senäts should be detached from party politics, your proposal might result in many future votes being invalidated. How would you prevent that?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 30, 2017 9:52:14 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

I do not know the exact numbers, but I think many a voter votes for the party, and not for a specific person. This party votes is, again: only so far as I am informed, interpreted by the Chancery to mean I vote for the person whom this party endorses.

While I agree that Senäts should be detached from party politics, your proposal might result in many future votes being invalidated. How would you prevent that?

When put together with my IRV bill, my Senate registration bill, and the plans I've heard Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. would make if these were enacted, the ballot would contain a drop-down menu of registered candidates.  There would be a clear indication that voters are to select a candidate from the list (or a write-in), and no indication that voting for a party endorsement is allowed.  Hopefully, instructions to this extent could be placed on the ballot regardless of the fate of my other two amendments.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Jan 30, 2017 18:28:11 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jan 30, 2017 9:52:14 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

I do not know the exact numbers, but I think many a voter votes for the party, and not for a specific person. This party votes is, again: only so far as I am informed, interpreted by the Chancery to mean I vote for the person whom this party endorses.

While I agree that Senäts should be detached from party politics, your proposal might result in many future votes being invalidated. How would you prevent that?

When put together with my IRV bill, my Senate registration bill, and the plans I've heard Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. would make if these were enacted, the ballot would contain a drop-down menu of registered candidates.  There would be a clear indication that voters are to select a candidate from the list (or a write-in), and no indication that voting for a party endorsement is allowed.  Hopefully, instructions to this extent could be placed on the ballot regardless of the fate of my other two amendments.

I'm fine with a dropdown list, but surely MPF could put an endorsement next to someone's name. Or even have a "straight ticket" option, that puts a party's vote in for Cosa, Senate, and Provincial.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jan 30, 2017 18:38:45 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Jan 30, 2017 18:28:11 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

When put together with my IRV bill, my Senate registration bill, and the plans I've heard Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. would make if these were enacted, the ballot would contain a drop-down menu of registered candidates.  There would be a clear indication that voters are to select a candidate from the list (or a write-in), and no indication that voting for a party endorsement is allowed.  Hopefully, instructions to this extent could be placed on the ballot regardless of the fate of my other two amendments.

I'm fine with a dropdown list, but surely MPF could put an endorsement next to someone's name. Or even have a "straight ticket" option, that puts a party's vote in for Cosa, Senate, and Provincial.

Yes, that would be possible (I think), but the whole point of this bill is to decouple Senators from parties.

[Glüc da Dhi]

Please add me as a cosponsor.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

If we were to pass this bill and solidify the fact that Senators are considered unaffiliated with parties, then will we at the same time grant Senators the power to enter 50 word statements on the ballot regarding referenda?

[Eðo Grischun]

Feb 7, 2017 22:54:34 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

If we were to pass this bill and solidify the fact that Senators are considered unaffiliated with parties, then will we at the same time grant Senators the power to enter 50 word statements on the ballot regarding referenda?

The Ballots are going to get pretty big and confusing if we keep bolting new sections to them. You do have a point though.

Can I ask, do ballots in other countries have these sort of things scrawled all over them? Here in UK, our Ballots are nice neat things with big boxes to tick, not paragraphs of opposing political opinion. Perhaps, the ballot should be stripped back to basics and a separate pamphlet sent along with it with all the 50 word stuff and referenda and senator IRV instructions and stuff.

Anyway, I digress.


I support this Bill having advocated for this many years ago. Please add me as a co-sponsor?

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Feb 7, 2017 23:34:26 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Feb 7, 2017 22:54:34 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

If we were to pass this bill and solidify the fact that Senators are considered unaffiliated with parties, then will we at the same time grant Senators the power to enter 50 word statements on the ballot regarding referenda?

The Ballots are going to get pretty big and confusing if we keep bolting new sections to them. You do have a point though.

Can I ask, do ballots in other countries have these sort of things scrawled all over them? Here in UK, our Ballots are nice neat things with big boxes to tick, not paragraphs of opposing political opinion. Perhaps, the ballot should be stripped back to basics and a separate pamphlet sent along with it with all the 50 word stuff and referenda and senator IRV instructions and stuff.

In some jurisdictions, ballots are sent along with 50 word statements and such. I'd support them as part of a pamphlet or some kind of a separate portion of the ballot if something was proposed to do so, but as most citizens vote electronically, I think you have to click on a drop down text box to read the statements as it is.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Feb 8, 2017 0:10:51 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

Feb 7, 2017 23:34:26 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

The Ballots are going to get pretty big and confusing if we keep bolting new sections to them. You do have a point though.

Can I ask, do ballots in other countries have these sort of things scrawled all over them? Here in UK, our Ballots are nice neat things with big boxes to tick, not paragraphs of opposing political opinion. Perhaps, the ballot should be stripped back to basics and a separate pamphlet sent along with it with all the 50 word stuff and referenda and senator IRV instructions and stuff.

In some jurisdictions, ballots are sent along with 50 word statements and such. I'd support them as part of a pamphlet or some kind of a separate portion of the ballot if something was proposed to do so, but as most citizens vote electronically, I think you have to click on a drop down text box to read the statements as it is.

I'm pretty sure that all of the statements appear next to or above whatever item they are connected to. If they were to be included in a separate pamphlet, I fear that people wouldn't read them. Anyway, I do not share Etho's concern that the ballot is too cluttered, but given that I do not like to make multiple changes in the same bill unless absolutely necessary, I will probably leave this one as it is and propose another amendment allowing Senators to write 50-word statements.

[Eðo Grischun]

Feb 8, 2017 5:52:51 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Feb 8, 2017 0:10:51 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

In some jurisdictions, ballots are sent along with 50 word statements and such. I'd support them as part of a pamphlet or some kind of a separate portion of the ballot if something was proposed to do so, but as most citizens vote electronically, I think you have to click on a drop down text box to read the statements as it is.

I'm pretty sure that all of the statements appear next to or above whatever item they are connected to. If they were to be included in a separate pamphlet, I fear that people wouldn't read them. Anyway, I do not share Etho's concern that the ballot is too cluttered, but given that I do not like to make multiple changes in the same bill unless absolutely necessary, I will probably leave this one as it is and propose another amendment allowing Senators to write 50-word statements.

Agreed. It's totally a separate issue. Let's just unshackle the Senators from the Parties first.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

I wouldn't say it's a completely separate issue, but I agree that it shouldn't be included in this bill. My point was, there are ancillary concerns to this bill that I don't believe are being raised.

As to this bill itself, I'm still not convinced of its necessity. Senators can be endorsed by one party, multiple parties, or no parties at all. They aren't necessarily beholden to the parties which endorse them. Nor would this bill affect whether we continue to have partisan politics in the Senäts. I'm all for representing a province, and I have voted against, or for, bills which I don't necessarily agree with. But I also have to recognize that I myself am a party leader and the Senator from Benito is a party leader. It's amusing to think that this bill would "unshackle" Senators from parties, when actually, it merely eliminates a secondary option for someone casting their vote.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Feb 8, 2017 14:09:52 GMT -6 Munditenens Tresplet said:

I wouldn't say it's a completely separate issue, but I agree that it shouldn't be included in this bill. My point was, there are ancillary concerns to this bill that I don't believe are being raised.

As to this bill itself, I'm still not convinced of its necessity. Senators can be endorsed by one party, multiple parties, or no parties at all. They aren't necessarily beholden to the parties which endorse them. Nor would this bill affect whether we continue to have partisan politics in the Senäts. I'm all for representing a province, and I have voted against, or for, bills which I don't necessarily agree with. But I also have to recognize that I myself am a party leader and the Senator from Benito is a party leader. It's amusing to think that this bill would "unshackle" Senators from parties, when actually, it merely eliminates a secondary option for someone casting their vote.

It's not that I expect that this amendment would completely remove party politics from the Senate, or that Senators would become less political overall.  What the bill would do is emphasize province over party during elections to the Senate.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

No straight-ticket voting in Talossa. Ever. We've enough problems with that in the States with the electorate blithely being convenienced while having the incentive taken from them to bother learning about every race and candidate involved.

As for the amendment in question, I support a political party being able to endorse Senate candidates, but the voters need to vote for their Senate candidates directly and without the nebulousness of voting for a party instead of a specific person.

This amendment has my suppport. - GV, Fiova