The Free and Fair Elections Proposed Amendment

[areyoua (OP)]

Author: George Payne
Seconded: Jayne Casey
Date: June 2063[ooc] (June 10, 2011)[/ooc]

Observing that presidential elections have happened only once in our history

Observing that the charter has little to say on the topic of elections

Observing that having greater than two candidates creates a situation where votes may be split between two candidates with similar policies

Observing that in a populace as small as ours an exact tie is possible

Observing that no date has been set for an election

Observing that elections require a populace that is informed about the views of a President prior to his election

Observing that restricting candidates to only two terms in their lifetime restricts talent from being incorporated into government

I propose that if there are greater than two candidates for the position of President, and in the election no candidate receives greater than 50% of the vote, then a runoff is started with the two candidates with the greatest amount of votes, and the winner will be the President.

that if two candidates in the runoff or if in the election there are just two candidates, then the Ministers, except for any candidates, will convene and decide upon a President by majority vote.

that election years be the year prior to the President taking power

that candidates will declare their intention to run for office by June 1 of the election year

that elections be held on August 1 on every election year and last for 24 hours

that runoffs be held on September 1 on every election year and last for 24 hours if necessary

[ooc]that candidates declare their intention to run by Tuesday of the week before the elections[/ooc]

[ooc]that elections will be held on Tuesday of the election turn and end in 24 hours[/ooc]

[ooc]that runoffs will be held on Wednesday of the election turn and end in 24 hours if necessary[/ooc]

that a President may hold office for as many terms as the President is elected, but only two terms consecutively

[Detjen]

  Interesting,  though some of this IS covered,  you do point out a few things never thought of, or what to do with many canidates running.  I like some of this,  and I am willing to second it, though I believe the election should be held earlier in the year,  and be set should our first vote require the run off.   

Candidates should announce their intentions in June, starting on the first and ending on the 31st. 
First round of elections should take place in August  with a second round in September or October. 
By having the results before December, it gives the president time to consolidate his office and positions and be ready to take power in January of his first year as president. 
As election terms are five years and started in 2060,  every term would start in a year ending with Zero or 5,  which would mean election years would be in the ears ending with 9 or 4,  2064 would be our first election year, with the winner taking office January of 2065

I believe a person shoudl be content with two terms of presidency.

[ooc]I cannot guarantee my abilities to post on any given day save for my "weekend" which is Tuesday and Wednesday.  I chose Monday for my update day as I go to work early in the morning that day and get home in the afternoon.   if you would like to set both of these to Wednesday or generally willing to just give me sometime in the week it would be much easier on me.  also the terms of presidency I would like to try to make this clear,  any real person, myself you and ect can be president as much as you can get yourself elected,  though I was thinking the two term consecutive limit to break up the popular person running the show forever.    Our character personas,  your payne or my Casey, I feel should only be president for two terms, if you want to be president again, you invent a new person,  of course if you want an IC freedom for a person to be King president for almost his entire life,  thats fine too,  if everyone votes on it :p [/ooc]

[areyoua (OP)]

Moving the time for everything back does seem to be a wise option and the bill has been changed to reflect them.
[ooc]The real problem here is that if elections are held too soon after everyone declares their intention to run, then there will not be enough time to have debates and outline policies, so we may have a President no one wanted. I suppose we could have the elections one week and the election the next, but that really is too long for debate. The solution I think is best when one considers both your lack of time and the need for necessary debate is to have everyone declare their intention to run the week before the elections and the elections and runoffs to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday.[/ooc]

What I  was going for in the final line of the bill was not to say that a person should hold the Presidency until he dies, like the ancient FDR, but hold the Presidency for two terms after which someone else would take power and then run for office again after the "someone else" has finished his term, such as, although not exactly like, Grover Cleveland.

Additionally, I will vote for an extension of the debate time to 72 hours as not much has happened in the first 24.

George Payne
Infrastructure Minister

[ardem]

Hmm interesting I don't have much to add, or either know which way I feel about your bill, I will need to think on it more.

[Sheb]

I generally agree with the content of your bill, but I think it should take the form of an amendment to the charter rather than a new law.

[areyoua (OP)]

The charter is really quite a enigmatic work. There really is no reason to have it there other than as what is already on it as it is so easy to alter. In the past, the constitution was used in order to make a law harder to change or repeal, but our charter can be altered by a simple majority vote. Additionally, this bill doesn't actually violate any of the terms outlined in the charter as all it has to say on the topic of elections is that they will occur once every 5 years and be by popular vote. My proposal would change none of these things, so an amendment is not really all that necessary.

George Payne
Infrastructure Minister

[Sheb]

Well, a Constitution, Charter or Ground Law is more than a law that is hard to change. It is the Law that rules them All, the Law that set the framework of the government and explain how laws are made and changed, who can change them and how those persons are chosen. As such, having this set up inside the Charter would make sense.

[areyoua (OP)]

Where does it say that? Their is no Mission Statement, no Thesis, no reason for our charter. I admit it is a very vital piece of legislation, but no where anywhere in it does it say that all changes to the way government works must be put into it. In the history of the United States I see but two types of amendments. Ones that are put in that overrule a portion of the Constitution, and those that are put in to make them nearly impossible to change. Examples of the two would be the 17th and the 18th, respectively. Additionally, the entirety of the Bill of Rights can be seen as being under the second except for perhaps the 9th and 10th. This law can does neither of these two things as I have previously stated, so there is no reason for an amendment to be made.

There is no reason for this to be an amendment, but there is also a reason for this to not be an amendment. I am of the opinion that Amendments should be much more important than this. Although this bill would clear up some of the finer points of elections, it does not make any sweeping changes that will massively alter the face of government. It is simply too small. If every law that even had a slight impact on the way our Government works was an amendment, we would have only amendments.

George Payne
Infrastructure Minister

[ooc]Also, voting starts tomorrow.[/ooc]

[Detjen]

 I find this bill to be rather important our election of our officials is, in my opinion, the most important part of the function of our government.    I think this conversation serves to show the ambiguity between what we perceive as a bill and an amendment and may be our next subject.   it does however change one part of the charter,  in our charter the president is to be limited to two terms,  your bill would allow an almost unlimited number of terms,  provided they allow someone to be president in between every two terms.    so there is some charter change.     I would be willing to the back naming this an Amendment as I feel both the change and the importance of this bill deserves a higher "position" so to say.   As there is no actual definition between a bill and an amendment as of yet, there would be no reason to delay voting or to redo this in any way.

[Sheb]

Senator Payne, your knowledge of the history of the US constitution honor you, but you should not think that country got a monopoly on what a Constitution means.

As it as been pointed, this bill does edit the Charter. Moreover, it does more than giving precisions on the finer points of election, it sets our whole electoral process.

Anyway, as I said, the content of this bill strike me as both important and fair, and you have my support for it. However, if it is voted into law, I propose myself to re-write the charter to include this bill's provision into it.

Our charter was not voted upon, and I think it is time to debate it.

[areyoua (OP)]

Oh my. It seems I have a selective memory of my own bill. I had completely forgotten about the multiple terms allotment. Of course, that shoots massive holes into my argument, and therefore it must be an amendment by even my own argument. However, the manner by which it is written into the Charter must be taken into account as well. As far as I know, no one has ever taken a pen and white out and written on any constitution anywhere. We should be no different, and this bill should simply called an amendment rather than a resolution. Therefore, the title of the bill has been changed to the rather clunky "Proposed Amendment" which should be changed to "Amendment" if passed.

You're right to say that the US does not hold sole power on a Constitution, but what other country in the world has a better known constitution? Countries around the world have used it as a basis for their own constitutions, so why not use it to base our Charter off of? I understand the international nature of our Federation, but what else should we use as a base? The constitution of the communist, one-party PRC, the unwritten version of the British. or the well-known, established Constitution of the United States?

George Payne
Infrastructure Minister

[Sheb]

Well, tu US Constitution for all its history and fame isn't the best one out there. It was made at a time when some things, like preventing people from becoming King were important and when other, like preventing people to shoot their neighbours with their guns, were not.

It would be much better to write up a clear constitution, with a bill of rights attached.

[Detjen]

Voting has begun