View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Underhusen Election Protection Act.

Amendments
2. Article I, Section 2 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:

The Underhusen shall be comprised of no fewer than four and no more than seven Skrifa elected by the Citizens of Wintreath. The exact number of Skrifa is to be determined by the Underhusen prior to Underhusen elections opening. Should the number of candidates be fewer than or equal to the determined number of Skrifa, all candidates are to be considered elected by default, if the number of candidates is at least four. Should the number of candidates be less than four, all candidates are elected by default, and a Special Election begins to fill the remaining seats until there are at least four Skrifa. If the seats are not filled and it is 6 weeks before the next regular election, that Underhusen is dissolved and the prior Underhusen is to continue, with the Special Election continuing or being re-held for any unfilled seats in the prior Underhusen. The Underhusen will continue to function during these Special Elections.

3. Article I, Section 4 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:

Upon all seats of the Underhusen being filled, the new Underhusen is to, under the supervision of the Monarch, select a member of its own to preside over the Underhusen as Speaker, the procedure for which is to be declared in the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen. After the Speaker is selected, the prior Underhusen is dissolved.

Peers (myself, @Wintermoot, @Aragonn, @Cinciri and @trader) may now vote Aye, Nay, or may Abstain from voting.

I'll admit this one slipped through the cracks for me and I only realized this was a thing now, even though I was mentioned twice in the discussion topic. v_v

I personally feel like the amendment to Article I, Section 2 is a bit inefficient and unfair. If there weren't enough people interested in running during the regular election, how likely is it that people will be more interested when a second special election happens immediately afterwards? And I don't think it's very fair that if we don't scrounge up four candidates than those who did run are disregarded in favour of the prior Underhusen. I feel like a fairer system would have been for the candidates who did run to win by default and then for members of the prior Underhusen to be given the opportunity to continue serving in order of who got the most votes in the last election, until the four slots are filled. But even then, I have to wonder how productive that session would be if those prior members couldn't be bothered to run for re-election to begin with.

Maybe at that point we'd just have to acknowledge that we're looking for seat-warmers.

I'm also a bit unsure about the other amendment. I get the idea that it means the Underhusen wouldn't be out of commission while the new session is electing a Speaker, but it opens up the possibility that two Underhusen sessions are active in the same forum at the same time, opening up the possibility that they could get in each other's business. If the old Underhusen was finishing up business that week, does that mean the new Underhusen could take part in those conversations and vote too?

I'm conflicted on this one, partially because I hate that I missed the original discussion and I'm weighing in at the last minute.

I'd have to agree with Moot. I certainly agree that there should be a minimum, because the more we have involved the better. However it seems like this is a system that can implode easily if the Underhusen dissolves. That can cause some outrage among those who were voted in.

The second just seems confusing. Again I must agree with Moot, in that an overlap seems dangerous. It opens the chance that two legislations get drawn up that conflict each other, or that all the sudden you have folk arguing over who should be listened too first. It just seems like a muddle of problems.

I'm goinng to vote Nay, not because I dissaprove of the goals of the ammendments, but because I feel they can be done differently without the fragile system this appears to be presenting

@Wuufu @Aragonn @trader

We should probably wrap this voting up.

Agreed completely.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this act. While I kind of like the stop gaps to prevent the Underhusen from becoming unfilled, the way it is worded perhaps over complicates the matter a little. The whole having two Underhusen's running side by side is certainly a problem.

As a result, while I started out in favour of this act, my Peers have convinced me otherwise. As such, I will also vote Nay.

I'm with Moot. Nay

I've also been swayed by Moot's argument against this bill, I think that we do need some measures for this matter but this isn't really it. So I'm going to have to vote Nay.

Also, sorry about the late response, I meant to get back to this at some point but it's the end of days (at school) so that means I've been busy with the necessary preparations assignments and stuff.

Edit: forgot to actually put my vote into the thing

I will vote nay as well.

With that, given that there are five votes against, I declare this act has FAILED to pass the Overhusen.

Since the full time has expired, this vote is now closed.