Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jan 25, 2009 11:01:34 GMT -6
I was referring to the previous discussions about parties being allowed to take back seats from MCs who vote against planks of the their party's platform.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2009 13:06:46 GMT -6
I was referring to the previous discussions about parties being allowed to take back seats from MCs who vote against planks of the their party's platform. I would not be opposed to such legislation, but I fear including too many provisions in this one amendment might scare people off. Technically, if a person leaves with their seats their original party can simply propose a bill to remove them, if they can get the necessary votes, it will happen so it wouldn't be impossible to do now, I just haven't seen a party want to chase down an MC like that. But, I think the MC issue would first require us to determine, as a whole, to whom Cosa seats belong. I feel that if I vote for the CCCP and they are given seats in the general election, those seats belong to the CCCP, not the individual MC. So if the MC leaves the party, the seats should be relinquished and reassigned to another party member. With that being said, I think we also need to be very careful in how we allow for such a removal so that MCs can feel confident to vote their conscience. To offer Senators such a protection with the proposed recall amendment, I afford them the opportunity to block their recall throw legislation. I think we would simply have to ensure that the rights of the MC are also protected so that a party cannot abuse the system.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Jan 25, 2009 13:08:04 GMT -6
I oppose it as a blanket Policy. As long as it is a intraparty policy, I'm ok with that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2009 15:34:12 GMT -6
All that could really be done would be to authorize parties to keep seats if a person leaves if they choose.
But, I think this present amendment addresses a smaller and less controversial concern. Namely that an MC can be removed through legislative means and a Senator cannot. This bridges that gap but I'm not terribly comfortable clumping it all together into one amendment because then we risk not accomplishing anything if the whole thing fails.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jan 25, 2009 19:52:58 GMT -6
I'm not trying to or suggesting that we pork barrel this legislation.
Should this pass it could be used to strengthen the argument of removing MCs for voting against their constituency's (aka party's) desires.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jan 25, 2009 23:58:10 GMT -6
The OrgLaw currently allows for the removal of MC's by a two-thirds vote of the Cosa. Perhaps this is the way that Senators should be removable as well -- by a two-thirds vote of the body in which they sit?
Given the size of the Senate, however, a very small number of votes would be necessary, and this might not be sufficient. Captain Tim's idea here that the province represented by the Senator should have a voice in this decision seems a good remedy for this.
This inspires a thought that is very similar to the current proposal: A recall election (or petition) that has been passed (or that is supported) by an appropriate percentage of the provincial electorate could be required to be entertained as a resolution of the Senate that will be put on the next Clark. Such a resolution would call for the removal of the Senator in question, and must be passed with a 2/3 majority (five votes) in order to effect the explusion.
I would think that this might work well, in that the citizenry of other provinces would rise up against their own Senators if they see that he or she is voting irrationally against the will of the people of the province. If the Senate thus acts to remove a Senator for insufficient reasons, Senators who involved themselves in such a thing would themselves be recalled, and at worst would be denied re-election.
Hooligan
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 7:23:27 GMT -6
Keep in mind, that under either proposal, Provinces can pass legislation to determine conditions under which a Senator might be recalled.
Benito might say that a Senator can only be recalled in certain situations while Vuode says that a Senator can be recalled anywhere, anytime. If this amendment were to pass, the nice thing is that Provinces are in a position to draft such legislation.
I believe this would tie Senators more closely to provinces and prevent abuse of the recall system at the same time.
The reason why I stayed away from a removal similar to that of an MC is simply that, as Hooligan said, it would require relatively few people to remove a person and also, unlike an MC, a Senator is tied to a geographic constituency and id directly elected by those citizens. So, as a citizen of Benito, I wouldn't really be keen on an MC from another province trying to remove the Senator that we democratically elected for reasons ranging from bad breath to voting against their bills.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 28, 2009 3:09:31 GMT -6
It is my suggestion that we alter this somewhat, and instead insert language to permit provinces to run recalls according to their own rules. This would allow such things as limitations on the frequency and manner of recall elections and other items that are best dealt with in individual provinces.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 9:16:21 GMT -6
It is my suggestion that we alter this somewhat, and instead insert language to permit provinces to run recalls according to their own rules. This would allow such things as limitations on the frequency and manner of recall elections and other items that are best dealt with in individual provinces. That was my intention, but you're right, it should be included in the amendment for clarity.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Jan 28, 2009 11:12:09 GMT -6
I agree with Alex and Cap. Asmourescu.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jan 29, 2009 19:31:18 GMT -6
Didn't we discuss removing MC seats and end up NOT doing so? Remember that discussion? Bad, bad idea.
As for the Bill - I think recalls remains a brilliant idea, but think it castrates the Bill to remove SOME form of "marginalisation" of the Senats. Currently, the balance of power is radically towards the Senats, due to numbers if nothing else. I don't want to get into any sort of ARGUMENT here, or end up leaving people feeling insulted, but:
1) Being a Senator does not, I'd suggest, necessarily make you wiser than an MC, so the idea of an absolute oversight becomes a little more difficult.
and
2) It might be natural, PERHAPS, SUBCONSCIOUSLY, etc, etc, that Senators might oppose reduction of their own power for reasons that aren't strictly in the interests of the nation.
This is a farcical discussion anyway...
|
|