View Topic

Initiatives and Recalls aren't under Article I though, it's Article IV...

I believe that's already covered:

3. Article IV Sections 4-6 of the Fundamental Laws shall be removed, and subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.

Edit: If we're changing as well, it should probably be changed to:

3. Article IV Sections 4-11 of the Fundamental Laws shall be removed.

It was, but the recall process was under sections IV.7-11, and I took a look at the rest of Article IV and I realized it had to be completely revised:

3. Article IV of the Fundamental Laws shall be amended as follows:

1. Only Storting members of Wintreath shall be eligible to vote in elections, stand for elected office, or assume any elected office. The Monarch may not stand for or assume any elected office.
2. Elections shall follow the optional preferential voting system, and the results shall be determined by either via instant runoff in single-seat positions or single transferable vote in multi-seat positions.
3. Elections shall be overseen by the Monarch or the Monarch's designee. No person shall oversee an election in which they are running.
4. In Storting Officer elections, voting members shall have the option to post their votes publicly or send their votes to the person overseeing the election via private message.

I hope this is better. This also fixes a numbering problem in which there were two 3. sections under the main bill heading.

What about sections 7-11 of Article IV?

They were the recall portions. They're removed because the bill changes the entire Article IV to the above.

What about sections 7-11 of Article IV?

Wouldn't this suffice?

4. Article IV Sections 5-11 of the Fundamental Laws shall be removed.

They were the recall portions. They're removed because the bill changes the entire Article IV to the above.

The version of the bill you just posted says 4-6 and renumber the rest.

Edit: I appear to have misread your post. In this case, I think that we need to be clear that the rest of Article IV is removed.

Shouldn't we still have some recall procedure for elected positions though?

Oh! If that's what you mean, I can draft something, but we'll have to determine if we should allow recalls first; that'll have to be more of a group consensus.

We definitely need recalls.

I'm in favour of recalls.

I'm in favour of recalls.

Yes, I am as well.  What else do we need to revise in order to ensure a precise syntax in the bill this time?

I agree with ability for recalls as well.

Something I noticed:

9. Legislation concerning matters subject to alternative approval methods as approved by both the Storting and Monarch (or the previous Overhusen chamber) shall be exempt from Section 6 and instead follow the methods specified in the relevant legislation. Legislation concerning the Procedural Rules of the Storting, the voting rights of members, and Officers of the Storting shall also be exempt from Section 6 and shall be considered law upon passage by the Storting.

I believe this should be in reference to Section 7 not 6. I think it was not changed when the numbering was fixed, correct?

Also, I assume the creation of officers other than the Speaker will just be through the new Procedural Rules?

I reintroduced the bill into the Underhusen, complete with a section on recalls and an updated I.9 to change the "Section 6" wording to "Section 7". Since I ended up renumbering the sections after you initially pointed out that error, I take responsibility for not updating that section, apparently based on other numbers. I suppose you have a knack for pointing out numerical errors.

@Wintermoot
The recall section, while preserved, would not be usable, because it's only for the UH...which means that you could not recall any elected person.

So you have to change the recall section completely

I've also forgotten if we stripped out initiatives or not. If we haven't, then that needs to be done...

Also here is an important question: "Would the court have the authority to overturn a suspension from Voting?" (it should, in all honesty IMO). On the matter of Speaker PT selection, I personally believe we should just have an appointed Speaker PT, and reuse our current PT selection procedure. This way we never have an issue of "Well no one else ran."

Further I also have an issue with leaving it to the Open Assembly to decide, if we are specifying that the PT is selected by the person with the second most votes in the Fundamental Laws, then we MUST specify what happens if there are not two people running, or if no one else gets any votes. Else we will get a very broken system.

I fully agree with you on the PT selection process needing to be mapped out in the bill. For the appointed PT, however, it seemed a tad unclear: did you mean appointed by the Speaker or by someone else? I presume the Speaker, but it was still rather ambiguous.

As for the court overturning of the suspension, what you're saying makes sense, but you have to keep in mind that the court consists of members of the Storting, the same members who potentially voted to suspend someone's voting rights in the first place.