View Topic

Note: This is a draft and not a petition.

This draft amendment to the Fundamental Laws is based on the discussion that began here when discussing the ASH Act. I tend to agree with @Sapphiron and @Gerrick that the matter would best be resolved by a constitutional amendment, because a decree faces the same issues the original Definition of Abstention Act has. Even with executive and legislative authority, I still don't have the authority over votes defined in the Fundamental Laws themselves. This amendment will guarantee the right to abstain in all official votes regardless of where that vote is defined, and I tried to word it so it was valid both when voting aye/nay and for a candidate in an election.

Current Text

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Right to Abstain Amendment Act.

Amendment
2) Article III Section 8 shall be added to the Fundamental Laws with the following text:

8. Citizens shall have the right to vote "Abstain" in any referendum, election, or vote created under the authority of this document or subordinate documents. Abstain votes shall be recorded but not counted for or against the matter at vote, including votes that require supermajority approval to pass.

I would capitalize the first mention of abstain and put it in quotation marks.

I'm also leaning towards adding a more explicit bit about supermajorities since I believe that's where the problems first arose with abstentions that led to the passage of the Definition of Abstention Act. Perhaps even just adding at the end something as simple as "including votes that require supermajority approval to pass."

Wording seems a bit unnatural, would prefer:

Citizens shall have the right to abstain from voting

Amended
To include Gerrick's suggestions.

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Right to Abstain Amendment Act.

Effect
2) Article III Section 8 shall be added with the following text:

8. Citizens shall have the right to vote abstain "Abstain" in any referendum, election, or vote created under the authority of this document or subordinate documents. Abstain votes shall be recorded but not counted for or against the matter at vote, including votes that require supermajority approval to pass.

@taulover: My concern with the wording you're suggesting is that it seems to say that Citizens have the right not to cast a vote at all, which they certainly do, but that's not what we're going for here.

Amended
To include Gerrick's suggestions.

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Right to Abstain Amendment Act.

Effect
2) Article III Section 8 shall be added with the following text:

8. Citizens shall have the right to vote abstain "Abstain" in any referendum, election, or vote created under the authority of this document or subordinate documents. Abstain votes shall be recorded but not counted for or against the matter at vote, including votes that require supermajority approval to pass.

@taulover: My concern with the wording you're suggesting is that it seems to say that Citizens have the right not to cast a vote at all, which they certainly do, but that's not what we're going for here.

I see where you're coming from and I think it works well as is.

After a second read-through, I personally would change the article title "Effect" to "Amendment" since although this bill is adding a section rather than amending an existing section, it is amending the law itself (as it states in the name of the act) -- also I haven't seen the word "Effect" used as an article title before.

I would also change section 2 to "Article III Section 8 shall be added to the Fundamental Laws with the following text:" since the bill currently doesn't state which law it is amending.

After that, though, I think it's all done and ready.

Just an idea, but I think it would also be interesting at some point (perhaps after we're done rectifying the old laws with the new Fundamental Laws/Royal Decrees and actually establish the Landsraad) to set the custom/precedent (not requirement) of including a summary/legislative intent section to bills after the title section that would state the purpose of the bill similarly to what Wintermoot has done to the laws added to the Codex. Think it would be helpful for those who didn't pay attention to the drafting of the bill but may still vote on it, for whomever updates the Codex of Laws with the passage of new laws, and for posterity.

Amended
To include Gerrick's suggestions (again ).

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Right to Abstain Amendment Act.

Effect Amendment
2) Article III Section 8 shall be added to the Fundamental Laws with the following text:

8. Citizens shall have the right to vote "Abstain" in any referendum, election, or vote created under the authority of this document or subordinate documents. Abstain votes shall be recorded but not counted for or against the matter at vote, including votes that require supermajority approval to pass.

I think that's a great idea, which could be included as part of a template/style guide for future acts. Hopefully that's something the first Chancellor will pick up on.

Just an idea, but I think it would also be interesting at some point (perhaps after we're done rectifying the old laws with the new Fundamental Laws/Royal Decrees and actually establish the Landsraad) to set the custom/precedent (not requirement) of including a summary/legislative intent section to bills after the title section that would state the purpose of the bill similarly to what Wintermoot has done to the laws added to the Codex. Think it would be helpful for those who didn't pay attention to the drafting of the bill but may still vote on it, for whomever updates the Codex of Laws with the passage of new laws, and for posterity.

I used to do this back in the day, but a lot of people said it was pointless and added unnecessary clutter. I personally like it, as it allows one to summarise the intent of a new law in the first paragraph.

The latest revision of the RtAAA bill looks good to me, Moot!

I think it was an idea before its time. At the time there weren't many laws and I think people assumed that you could just read through them quickly and know what's going on. Now that we have 7+ years of laws behind us, that's not so easy to do and it's not always easy for even veterans to remember how or why something was changed a long time ago.