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.

So I've been working on this a bit since the start of this session, so here it is. It's a way to protect Underhusen elections if there are less candidates than the amount of seats.

If it's above 3, then all people are elected by default, otherwise the seats are filled and a Special Election is held. The prior Underhusen continues until the election of a Speaker, as well. If the Special Election is still ongoing at a certain point, then that Underhusen is dissolved entirely. The reason for this is to prevent one or two person Underhusens.

I am reintroducing this to the floor as we said that we'd leave it to this session to decide on this.

@Wuufu
@Wintermoot
@Aragonn
@Cinciri
@trader

for the Overhusen's convenience.

I believe all of the instances of "less than" should be corrected to "fewer than".

Also, it says, "Should the number of candidates be less than or equal to the determined number of Skrifa, all candidates shall be considered elected by default, if the number of candidates is above four." I believe the last words should be "at least four" since it doesn't say what to do if there are exactly four candidates. Think it'd read more smoothly as "Should the number of candidates be fewer than or equal to the determined number of Skrifa but at least four, all candidates shall be considered elected by default," but that's just a personal preference.

Also, I thought it was kinda funny that you (Chanku) included the word "shall" when you had just introduced an act to remove all instances of it.

I believe all of the instances of "less than" should be corrected to "fewer than".

Also, it says, "Should the number of candidates be less than or equal to the determined number of Skrifa, all candidates shall be considered elected by default, if the number of candidates is above four." I believe the last words should be "at least four" since it doesn't say what to do if there are exactly four candidates. Think it'd read more smoothly as "Should the number of candidates be fewer than or equal to the determined number of Skrifa but at least four, all candidates shall be considered elected by default," but that's just a personal preference.

Also, I thought it was kinda funny that you (Chanku) included the word "shall" when you had just introduced an act to remove all instances of it.

Most of this was a copy/past from the current law, and I just didn't really focus on removing the shalls, as I was more focused on the content. In any case I did update somethings in response to your feedback

I think these are mostly good changes to our laws, the only question I have is why the UH is only dissolved after a speaker is elected, not after elections have been concluded? I understand the need for a government but this provides the ability for a UH to rush legislation through their session, even after their terms should have ended.

Oh, and it doesn't seem we have a procedure to determine a speaker if a vote lands at a stalemate. It might be worth adding a clause or something to have a speaker selected at random after a certain amount of time, to ensure that the government can move on, even if one can't be elected.

@Chanku

I think these are mostly good changes to our laws, the only question I have is why the UH is only dissolved after a speaker is elected, not after elections have been concluded? I understand the need for a government but this provides the ability for a UH to rush legislation through their session, even after their terms should have ended.

I actually did this for a few reasons. First is the fact that I modeled this off of some real governments, which usually have the prior term exist until the meeting and election of a Speaker/President of the chamber. Because we don't physically meet, I set it to the election of the Speaker of the Underhusen.

The ability for the prior UH to be able to pass something is intended, and is not necessarily an unintended consequence. The reason being that there may be a certain matter that is time-sensitive and needs to be heard before the session has fully sat, as the current Underhusen procedure requires a Speaker be elected BEFORE any other matters can be handled, this eliminates any potential dead-period where nothing can be considered. Keep in mind that anything passed by the UH still has to be heard by the OH.

Oh, and it doesn't seem we have a procedure to determine a speaker if a vote lands at a stalemate. It might be worth adding a clause or something to have a speaker selected at random after a certain amount of time, to ensure that the government can move on, even if one can't be elected.

The procedure is that the vote doesn't close until someone changes their vote, this is in the Underhusen Procedural Rules, and as such is a matter for that law. I don't necessarily view it as appropriate to put that matter in this amendment.

As this legislation has been reintroduced, I am opening this thread again.

@Wuufu
@Wintermoot
@Aragonn
@Cinciri
@trader

For the Overhusen's convenience.

I feel that any reservations I have/had have been resolved, so you guys can look forward to my support for this bill, as long as any major criticisms aren't brought up.

Section 2 has been changed to reflect the following additions:

...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.

If the seats are not filled and it is 6 weeks before the next regular election...

@Wintermoot, I'm going to be responding to your criticism of the amendment (despite it having been around for TWO sessions at this point, which does annoy me a bit admittedly).

In any case your cricitisms have issues that I must address:

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.

First off, the system works in reverse for a few reasons: first off it's actually a bit more efficient than the other way around, the reason being that the prior Underhusen would be around and able to actually act, in addition to not having to select a new Speaker. Additionally vacancies would be filled through the candidates of the prior election, then Special Elections. This does mean they do get a chance, however it does not need to be fair, as if the region can not field 4 candidates for an entire month, then we have other issues. Also your thing proposal has issues that this one does not, first off what if no one from the prior Underhusen wishes to sit? Then we can have an UH with one or two people, which is hardly keeping in the spirit of the Underhusen.

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?

Given I wrote that section, you could have asked me, and I've addressed this before (IIRC), No, it does not. The procedural rules and the laws for each session only apply for that session, additionally the Procedural Rules require electing a Speaker before any session can debate or vote on bills. This means that the prior session can't discuss the prior session's activities nor vote until they elect a Speaker. With the dissolution of the prior Underhusen with that, then this isn't a problem. It might be a bit more messy in some instances (which there are probably ways to deal with it), most of them on the Speaker of the prior session. Additionally, bills that are not handled before the dissolution of the prior Underhusen die anyways, meaning the worst thing that could happen is the dissolution of the prior session occurs early and the bill needs to be reconsidered by the new session, which is as things are now, for the most part.

(despite it having been around for TWO sessions at this point, which does annoy me a bit admittedly).

You're right, and again I'm sorry that it fell through the cracks for me. I'm making a greater effort to stay on top of things here on a daily basis, but that came after the last time this was discussed at a time that I was struggling. I know you've been in a similar place yourself, so I hope that you understand.

First off, the system works in reverse for a few reasons: first off it's actually a bit more efficient than the other way around, the reason being that the prior Underhusen would be around and able to actually act, in addition to not having to select a new Speaker. Additionally vacancies would be filled through the candidates of the prior election, then Special Elections. This does mean they do get a chance, however it does not need to be fair, as if the region can not field 4 candidates for an entire month, then we have other issues. Also your thing proposal has issues that this one does not, first off what if no one from the prior Underhusen wishes to sit? Then we can have an UH with one or two people, which is hardly keeping in the spirit of the Underhusen.

With all due respect, if nobody from the Underhusen wishes to sit in the new session, than your proposed system is as fucked as mine. Sure, under your system they would be considered the new legal Underhusen automatically, but you couldn't force them to participate or be active if they didn't care to...again, it would be a case of finding seat-warmers. At least with the system I proposed the people who showed enough of an interest in being in the Underhusen to actually stand for election would be the first to fill the seats, and that doesn't exclude the prior Underhusen from being part of that group if they can be bothered to make a single post to stand for election. Note: Preferably I would like them to have campaigns, participate in the Ice Cream Social, etc, but I understand we're talking about a dire situation here.

Additionally, if the prior Underhusen is automatically continued if there aren't enough candidates, then wouldn't that give the members of the prior Underhusen incentive not to run in hopes that they would automatically continue on, especially if they don't think they would win re-election?

Given I wrote that section, you could have asked me, and I've addressed this before (IIRC), No, it does not. The procedural rules and the laws for each session only apply for that session, additionally the Procedural Rules require electing a Speaker before any session can debate or vote on bills. This means that the prior session can't discuss the prior session's activities nor vote until they elect a Speaker. With the dissolution of the prior Underhusen with that, then this isn't a problem. It might be a bit more messy in some instances (which there are probably ways to deal with it), most of them on the Speaker of the prior session. Additionally, bills that are not handled before the dissolution of the prior Underhusen die anyways, meaning the worst thing that could happen is the dissolution of the prior session occurs early and the bill needs to be reconsidered by the new session, which is as things are now, for the most part.

Could you reference where it says that the procedural rules and laws for each session only apply for that session and where it says that Skrifa can't vote or debate on anything until after a Speaker is elected? All I could find is that Skrifa couldn't introduce legislation until a Speaker has been elected (Procedural Rules Section 2), and that legislation that hasn't received a valid and seconded motion are automatically tabled at the end of a session (Section 4). I'm hardly an expert on the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen and admit that I might be missing something, but I don't see where Skrifa are forbidden from voting or debating legislation from the previous session if that session hasn't ended yet.

Legalities aside, as you say it would be messy to have both sessions doing work in the Underhusen at the same time. If the goal is to reduce the time that the Underhusen can't act, maybe we could look at alternative ideas...we could shorten the Speaker election period (something we already do in the event of an election run-off), or create a system of selecting the Speaker during the actual election (something I feel we discussed once before at some point). Given that Speaker elections have never involved all that much, I don't think there'd be any harm in looking into those things, and it wouldn't be messy either.

With all due respect, if nobody from the Underhusen wishes to sit in the new session, than your proposed system is as fucked as mine. Sure, under your system they would be considered the new legal Underhusen automatically, but you couldn't force them to participate or be active if they didn't care to...again, it would be a case of finding seat-warmers. At least with the system I proposed the people who showed enough of an interest in being in the Underhusen to actually stand for election would be the first to fill the seats, and that doesn't exclude the prior Underhusen from being part of that group if they can be bothered to make a single post to stand for election. Note: Preferably I would like them to have campaigns, participate in the Ice Cream Social, etc, but I understand we're talking about a dire situation here.

I mean, that's part of the point, to be around. Arguably the continued Underhusen would have less of a reason to pass laws beyond emergencies, especially since they are only continued because of a failure of elections. Additionally, special-elections and recalls still apply so if it comes to it, any member of the continued Underhusen can just be recalled or resign and someone else will get their seat.

Additionally, if the prior Underhusen is automatically continued if there aren't enough candidates, then wouldn't that give the members of the prior Underhusen incentive not to run in hopes that they would automatically continue on, especially if they don't think they would win re-election?

In a way, sure, it could. HOWEVER, again recall still is a thing and I would expect any individual who does this deliberately to be recalled. [/quote]

Could you reference where it says that the procedural rules and laws for each session only apply for that session and where it says that Skrifa can't vote or debate on anything until after a Speaker is elected? All I could find is that Skrifa couldn't introduce legislation until a Speaker has been elected (Procedural Rules Section 2), and that legislation that hasn't received a valid and seconded motion are automatically tabled at the end of a session (Section 4). I'm hardly an expert on the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen and admit that I might be missing something, but I don't see where Skrifa are forbidden from voting or debating legislation from the previous session if that session hasn't ended yet.

First off such explicit statements are not going to be found in our law, as we don't have any reason to explicitly state it.

First off is the fact that according to Wintrean Common Law, all bills from the prior session expire after the end of that session and must be reintroduced. Next is the fact that the new Underhusen can not introduce legislation until the election of a new Speaker, which also means it prohibits discussion of bills and thus voting until the election of a new Speaker for that session. Because of that new sessions are, therefore, prohibited from considering any bills at all, until that session elects a Speaker, which means that a new session can't debate bills, nor can they vote on any bills which means that the two sessions are separate. Due to these factors, our current law is sufficient for handling this case, and any Speaker worth their salt would likely hold this position anyway.

And before the question of whether or not Common Law has the force of law, I would argue it does. There are several unwritten things within our legal system that would fall under this category, and violations of the Common Law general lead to Statutory Law being written on it. Examples of this include the separation between the Legislature and the Monarchy, with the Monarchy not commenting on matters of the Legislature, and the Legislature avoiding the affairs of the Monarchy except when requested or required.

Legalities aside, as you say it would be messy to have both sessions doing work in the Underhusen at the same time. If the goal is to reduce the time that the Underhusen can't act, maybe we could look at alternative ideas...we could shorten the Speaker election period (something we already do in the event of an election run-off), or create a system of selecting the Speaker during the actual election (something I feel we discussed once before at some point). Given that Speaker elections have never involved all that much, I don't think there'd be any harm in looking into those things, and it wouldn't be messy either.

Perhaps, however the only way to effectively eliminate this period is to have two sessions exist at once, or move Speaker selection out of the session entirely (something which I don't necessarily like, and would be equally messy).

I mean, that's part of the point, to be around. Arguably the continued Underhusen would have less of a reason to pass laws beyond emergencies, especially since they are only continued because of a failure of elections. Additionally, special-elections and recalls still apply so if it comes to it, any member of the continued Underhusen can just be recalled or resign and someone else will get their seat.

But that's the point...you're keeping people in the Underhusen who haven't confirmed that they're able and willing to continue over people who have, then leaving it up to the Citizens to recall them if they aren't active. It's a lot of work to remove people who never said they wanted to remain to start with.

In a way, sure, it could. HOWEVER, again recall still is a thing and I would expect any individual who does this deliberately to be recalled.

But why even give people that opening to start with? Why create a loophole and then expect Citizens to recall anyone who uses it?

First off such explicit statements are not going to be found in our law, as we don't have any reason to explicitly state it.

First off is the fact that according to Wintrean Common Law, all bills from the prior session expire after the end of that session and must be reintroduced. Next is the fact that the new Underhusen can not introduce legislation until the election of a new Speaker, which also means it prohibits discussion of bills and thus voting until the election of a new Speaker for that session. Because of that new sessions are, therefore, prohibited from considering any bills at all, until that session elects a Speaker, which means that a new session can't debate bills, nor can they vote on any bills which means that the two sessions are separate. Due to these factors, our current law is sufficient for handling this case, and any Speaker worth their salt would likely hold this position anyway.

And before the question of whether or not Common Law has the force of law, I would argue it does. There are several unwritten things within our legal system that would fall under this category, and violations of the Common Law general lead to Statutory Law being written on it. Examples of this include the separation between the Legislature and the Monarchy, with the Monarchy not commenting on matters of the Legislature, and the Legislature avoiding the affairs of the Monarchy except when requested or required.

I think there would be plenty of reason to explicitly state it if the proposal had passed, because it's obvious that the procedural rules in this matter were written with the assumption that only one session would be running at a time. There's nothing in the law that would explicitly forbid Skrifa from the new term from interacting with legislation from a prior term that hasn't ended yet, and there's nothing illegal about violating tradition. You yourself state that there have been times when tradition, or Common Law as you say, has been violated and required statutory law to then be written in order to enforce it.

At the very least, I think amendments would have to be made to the Procedural Rules to make clear that one session couldn't interact with legislation from another open session.

Perhaps, however the only way to effectively eliminate this period is to have two sessions exist at once, or move Speaker selection out of the session entirely (something which I don't necessarily like, and would be equally messy).

Is there a reason that we need to eliminate the period entirely, other than some unlikely emergency? It seems to me if that were the case, someone could be empowered to preside over a particular matter until the Speaker was selected. That seems like the least messy option to me, coupled with shortening the nomination and voting periods.