Our Senate has had many pieces of notable legislation come through it during this term. Looking at one current proposal, which was elevated from the Citizens' Assembly, we have the Third Amendment to the Elections Act (2014). First proposed by Assemblyman/Minister Calvin Coolidge, then later taken to the Senate by Zenny Fominov, this legislation is, in its own words, "an act to improve electoral transparency" (so we can finally see through everything!). It goes about doing this with one section, added on to "Regarding Other Matters,” stating that all candidates in an election must disclose which party they belong to, and failure to do so will lead to the candidate's disqualification (and possible death and consumption from President Kraken).
When this was in the Citizens' Assembly, the main argument of the supporters of this proposal was that if a person cares enough about a political party to join one, they should accurately represent that belief to the voters. To sum it up in the words of Zenny, ”You're simply not Independent if you're registered as a member of a political party.” And in the words of Senator Anumia, ”If you are part of a political party, you should be aligned with them at the ballot box, otherwise what's the point? Have something other than a ‘political party’ if you want to do that.”
The counter to that was that most people could easily look up the candidates' affiliation, thus satisfying any desire for knowledge they might have. In the wise words of Noto, ”The only times affiliations seem absolutely necessary to reveal is when the party is fielding a candidate and not just an individual from a party is running. An example would be is a party wrote up a platform and voted on a candidate to lead a ticket for that platform in a presidential election…” This quote from Noto put the hammer to the nail and seemingly sealed the coffin on this Amendment as it was voted down in a 5-10-1 fashion, in a fifth round TKO.
After, this was carried to the Senate on the back of Senator Zenny, who threatened to trip multiple times over scattered toilet paper, which, according to Anumia, was left by "the darn whippersnappers in the Assembly.” But nonetheless, Zenny made it to the Senate with the piece of legislation on her back (quite literally). And then the discussion continued, with multiple things being questioned.
Another question yearning for an answer is if it would be lying if the candidates did not disclose their affiliation, but those opposed brought up that the disqualification of candidates for this might be against their rights. This idea, championed by Senator/Associate Justice Drecq, argues that candidates have the right to free speech and free association, and this proposal violates both, by essentially forcing the candidate to say they belong to a party or not, and to associate themselves with a party or not, depending on their membership. Here, the arguments can be simplified by thinking of it like this: I can tell people that I am a pony because I have the right to freedom of speech. I can also list my profession on the ballot as "Pony" despite working in a glue factory. We have our rights, and they protect us, but the question remains if we have to make exceptions when it comes to the ballot box. We have yet to hear the words of Hy on the legality of this (Or for an AO to be filled out *stares*), as we all wait patiently for the discussion to venture on-wards in the Senate.
Also in the Senate thread, Senator Anumia brought up the question, ‘What happens if you are in multiple Parties?' We wait intentively for an answer in the Senate (where this question was asked by Senator modernsin) and any revisions they make (if they do) to further progress this discussion and legislation until the vote.
The EBC Panel then discussed this proposal. Chief Justice Malashaan argued, "It seems like something unsuited to legislation to me. The legislative philosophy in Europeia for some time has been for the statutes to provide the outline and to designate an official (in this case, the SCs) who is responsible for implementing the details in a reasonable manner. If the SCs want to list a party affiliation they can, if one wishes to request it, I see no reason why they should not, but legislatively requiring it is micromanaging." Senator PhDre mused, "I would like to see it pass via a senate resolution rather than legislation, if it were to be something the Senate wanted to see in future elections.” He went on to say, "Posting that fact in the election thread is not, in my opinion, unconstitutional. I'm not sure it's a great thing, or necessary, but it is something that can be posted as a fact, no?" He then gave the example, "This candidate is a member of the following parties: X Y Z". This statement was then agreed upon by the other panel members.
So, these arguments can be simplified by saying the legislation will be too difficult to enforce it through law, causing a problematic piece of legislation. It would be like thinking everyone on Earth should have a pony, but then once you require everyone on Earth to own a pony, people don't have enough money for a pony, so they go to Poor People Pony Payment Prison to work off their debt, then you have a world full of prisoners and pony poop.
To conclude, this legislation has seen many debates, ranging as many different venues as it could, in a relatively short time in the region. Although the members of the CA have decided to vote down the amendment, it was picked up in the Senate with all eyes now inventively watching like the owls of the night. Therefore, the conversation is not over, and this legislation could go many ways. We could pass this piece of legislation with some revisions enforcing people to provide their Party Affiliation in the Ballot Box, dismiss this legislation and vote it down resulting in the current way the SC’s keep Party Affiliation labels in the ballot box, or we can learn a lesson from this and change the way the SC’s label Party Affiliation and possibly pass a different version of this amendment altogether. It’s up in the air at this point (someone should catch it). Any further thoughts should be expressed, and heard, throughout the region. If you have yet done so, I would encourage you to read more about the amendment here(CA version) and here (Senate Version) so you can formulate an opinion for yourself, as we encourage everyone to voice it as well (just don’t voice it too loud, the walls are very thin here in Euro and the ponies hate loud noises).
When this was in the Citizens' Assembly, the main argument of the supporters of this proposal was that if a person cares enough about a political party to join one, they should accurately represent that belief to the voters. To sum it up in the words of Zenny, ”You're simply not Independent if you're registered as a member of a political party.” And in the words of Senator Anumia, ”If you are part of a political party, you should be aligned with them at the ballot box, otherwise what's the point? Have something other than a ‘political party’ if you want to do that.”
The counter to that was that most people could easily look up the candidates' affiliation, thus satisfying any desire for knowledge they might have. In the wise words of Noto, ”The only times affiliations seem absolutely necessary to reveal is when the party is fielding a candidate and not just an individual from a party is running. An example would be is a party wrote up a platform and voted on a candidate to lead a ticket for that platform in a presidential election…” This quote from Noto put the hammer to the nail and seemingly sealed the coffin on this Amendment as it was voted down in a 5-10-1 fashion, in a fifth round TKO.
After, this was carried to the Senate on the back of Senator Zenny, who threatened to trip multiple times over scattered toilet paper, which, according to Anumia, was left by "the darn whippersnappers in the Assembly.” But nonetheless, Zenny made it to the Senate with the piece of legislation on her back (quite literally). And then the discussion continued, with multiple things being questioned.
Another question yearning for an answer is if it would be lying if the candidates did not disclose their affiliation, but those opposed brought up that the disqualification of candidates for this might be against their rights. This idea, championed by Senator/Associate Justice Drecq, argues that candidates have the right to free speech and free association, and this proposal violates both, by essentially forcing the candidate to say they belong to a party or not, and to associate themselves with a party or not, depending on their membership. Here, the arguments can be simplified by thinking of it like this: I can tell people that I am a pony because I have the right to freedom of speech. I can also list my profession on the ballot as "Pony" despite working in a glue factory. We have our rights, and they protect us, but the question remains if we have to make exceptions when it comes to the ballot box. We have yet to hear the words of Hy on the legality of this (Or for an AO to be filled out *stares*), as we all wait patiently for the discussion to venture on-wards in the Senate.
Also in the Senate thread, Senator Anumia brought up the question, ‘What happens if you are in multiple Parties?' We wait intentively for an answer in the Senate (where this question was asked by Senator modernsin) and any revisions they make (if they do) to further progress this discussion and legislation until the vote.
The EBC Panel then discussed this proposal. Chief Justice Malashaan argued, "It seems like something unsuited to legislation to me. The legislative philosophy in Europeia for some time has been for the statutes to provide the outline and to designate an official (in this case, the SCs) who is responsible for implementing the details in a reasonable manner. If the SCs want to list a party affiliation they can, if one wishes to request it, I see no reason why they should not, but legislatively requiring it is micromanaging." Senator PhDre mused, "I would like to see it pass via a senate resolution rather than legislation, if it were to be something the Senate wanted to see in future elections.” He went on to say, "Posting that fact in the election thread is not, in my opinion, unconstitutional. I'm not sure it's a great thing, or necessary, but it is something that can be posted as a fact, no?" He then gave the example, "This candidate is a member of the following parties: X Y Z". This statement was then agreed upon by the other panel members.
So, these arguments can be simplified by saying the legislation will be too difficult to enforce it through law, causing a problematic piece of legislation. It would be like thinking everyone on Earth should have a pony, but then once you require everyone on Earth to own a pony, people don't have enough money for a pony, so they go to Poor People Pony Payment Prison to work off their debt, then you have a world full of prisoners and pony poop.
To conclude, this legislation has seen many debates, ranging as many different venues as it could, in a relatively short time in the region. Although the members of the CA have decided to vote down the amendment, it was picked up in the Senate with all eyes now inventively watching like the owls of the night. Therefore, the conversation is not over, and this legislation could go many ways. We could pass this piece of legislation with some revisions enforcing people to provide their Party Affiliation in the Ballot Box, dismiss this legislation and vote it down resulting in the current way the SC’s keep Party Affiliation labels in the ballot box, or we can learn a lesson from this and change the way the SC’s label Party Affiliation and possibly pass a different version of this amendment altogether. It’s up in the air at this point (someone should catch it). Any further thoughts should be expressed, and heard, throughout the region. If you have yet done so, I would encourage you to read more about the amendment here(CA version) and here (Senate Version) so you can formulate an opinion for yourself, as we encourage everyone to voice it as well (just don’t voice it too loud, the walls are very thin here in Euro and the ponies hate loud noises).
