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 fewer candidates than the number 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.

I am, by and large a fan of this. I just really want to change the length of time so that the UH doesn't only get going again when there is only 21 days left (which is actually less, considering a Speaker would need to be chosen first), and I still maintain I'd like to see a mechanism that allows for a mixture of old and new candidates.

EDIT: Also, there is a grammar mistake here - "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..."

I have bolded and underlined the missing word which needs to be inserted.

I move to extend debate for 48 hours.

I just really want to change the length of time so that the UH doesn't only get going again when there are only 21 days left (which is actually less, considering a Speaker would need to be chosen first)...

Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. Maybe 31 days is more reasonable? Or perhaps eight weeks? This is why I wanted to increase the length of UH terms lmao.

...and I still maintain I'd like to see a mechanism that allows for a mixture of old and new candidates.

What do you mean by this? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Currently, as the bill is laid out, the UH will just take everyone from the previous term and have them continue their duties should the new session never get going.

A practical example for why this could be problematic: Syraj disappeared during the previous term, so we would have been right back to square one, because even the old term would not have had enough people to possibly fill a seat if, say, two of the previous Skrifa went inactive or lost their citizenship.

EDIT: Oh, I also second the motion.

Motion to extend debate for 48 hours passes.

Currently, as the bill is laid out, the UH will just take everyone from the previous term and have them continue their duties should the new session never get going.

A practical example for why this could be problematic: Syraj disappeared during the previous term, so we would have been right back to square one, because even the old term would not have had enough people to possibly fill a seat if, say, two of the previous Skrifa went inactive or lost their citizenship.

Perhaps we could add a provision that allows for the election of a new seat even if it's rolled over from the previous UH.

Edit: Also what is your opinion on the time lengths I proposed?

Hmm, I would actually be a fan of 3 month terms, and if a stalemate lasts for two weeks, we go with the contingency.

Hmm, I would actually be a fan of 3 month terms, and if a stalemate lasts for two weeks, we go with the contingency.

Ahhhh so this might be a chance to get the term changes that’ve been discussed previously. Could we add that to this bill?

I would prefer working with what we have now, and introduce those changes separately.

Very well. @AJ BLarg @taulover if you two have anything else to say, it’d be appreciated. Also @Laurentus if I failed to acknowledge anything you said, let me know.

I move to vote

EDIT: Actually in light of Laurentus' concerns, I move to extend debate 48 hours.

There's still a grammar problem I pointed out, and the number of days have not been changed. If we move to vote now, I'll vote nay. If those things are addressed in the bill, and the length of time shortened to something more meaningful, I'll vote aye.

EDIT: There is also still no mechanism in place to allow a mix of old and new Skrifa.

There's still a grammar problem I pointed out...

Which one?

...and the number of days have not been ... shortened to something more meaningful ...

What? Shortened?? I was under the impression that you wanted it to be longer because you made the whole argument of it being too close to the election and we would barely have enough time between the reestablishment of the previous UH and the election. The wording in the bill is "twenty-one days before the election." Why would shortening the time solve the problem?

EDIT: There is also still no mechanism in place to allow a mix of old and new Skrifa.

Okay, but what would be a possible solution to that? You explained the problem but proposed no solution. As I said earlier: "Perhaps we could add a provision that allows for the election of a new seat even if it's rolled over from the previous UH."

The grammar problem I pointed out here has not been fixed:

I am, by and large a fan of this. I just really want to change the length of time so that the UH doesn't only get going again when there is only 21 days left (which is actually less, considering a Speaker would need to be chosen first), and I still maintain I'd like to see a mechanism that allows for a mixture of old and new candidates.

EDIT: Also, there is a grammar mistake here - "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..."

I have bolded and underlined the missing word which needs to be inserted.

Yeah, shortened, as in, the length of time the stalemate continues, so looking at it from the perspective you're seemingly viewing it, lengthened. I'd say 2 weeks into the new term, if there is still a stalemate, we enact the procedure in this act.

Oh, I agreed with your provision for allowing the election of one or two seats, but didn't state this, so my bad.

The grammar problem I pointed out here has not been fixed:

My bad, fixed. Could have sworn I fixed that when you first pointed it out and Grammarly didn't catch it for some reason.

Yeah, shortened, as in, the length of time the stalemate continues, so looking at it from the perspective you're seemingly viewing it, lengthened. I'd say 2 weeks into the new term, if there is still a stalemate, we enact the procedure in this act.

So you're proposing that we word it in terms of the beginning of the term? But what if the Underhusen fails to elect a speaker? According to the provisions in this bill, the term would never begin. If you want to do the 2 weeks thing, I would propose wording it as "6 weeks before the next election" since that date is guaranteed to happen. I know that's not 2 weeks, but I think it's still sufficient.

Oh, I agreed with your provision for allowing the election of one or two seats, but didn't state this, so my bad.

Oh okay, nice. I'll add that.


EDIT: Section 2 has been changed to reflect the following addition:

...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.