President Darcness Sends Controversial Amendment to Public Referendum




President Darcness Sends Controversial Amendment to Public Referendum
By Deepest House








(Europeia – May 22, 2017) – President Darcness today declined to sign or veto the Honored Citizen Restriction Amendment, which the Senate passed on May 21. By declining to sign or veto, the population of Europeia will decide the fate of the amendment at the ballot box. The Senate passed the amendment by a vote of four to two.

The amendment eliminates the right of the region’s honored citizens to speak without invitation in the Senate. President Darcness considered the law overnight before deciding to put the decision to public referendum. “This is an issue that I believe is best decided by the People themselves,” the president said in declining to sign or veto. “I hereby request that the issue of the People's Assent be discovered via referendum.”

Speaker of the Senate McEntire immediately slammed President Darcness for his refusal to sign or veto the legislation, which he presented to Goldenblock yesterday. “I would have preferred an outright veto,” he said.

“I was hoping, especially early into the President's tenure, that he would choose decisiveness, to either sign or veto the bill,” McEntire continued. “Instead, against the recommendation of the Attorney General, he has chosen neither path.” McEntire also took issue with the president’s intervention in what he saw as a Senate matter. “Let me be clear, this is a Senate issue. This is a question about who should speak on the Senate floor,” he emphatically stated upon hearing the news. “The Senate decided this issue.”

The Speaker of the Senate continued his indictment of the president’s decision, insinuating that Darcness’ decision undermines the value of the region’s senior legislative body and its ability to manage itself. “What disturbs me, though, is the lack of leadership here,” he said. “If we are going to have a referendum every time we don't have a unanimous vote in the Senate, why have a Senate?”

The amendment is the first legislative activity of the new Senate. Senator Leo introduced the amendment to the Senate on May 15 after the Citizens’ Assembly discussed the topic but ultimately failed to pass. The debate in the Senate, which included many honored citizens providing input, lasted nearly a week before the speaker called a vote. McEntire, Punchwood, Leo, and Mr. Verteger voted in favor, while Drexlore Greyjoy and Cerian Quilor voted against.

Public reaction to the referendum was mixed, with arguments for both sides quickly springing forth. PhDre supported the legislation. “It encourages [honored citizens] to actually run for Senate to directly impact Senate discussion for one,” he said. “It will also allow [honored citizens] to be honored without the reasonable concern of diluting Senate speaking rights.” Kuramia was unsure why the matter was even brought to referendum.

Erica vigorously supported the amendment, believing it grants too much political influence to unelected citizens. “It's your own responsibility to give your opinion exposure, not the Senate's,” she said, in regard to speaking rights allowing a prominent place for honored citizens to voice their concerns. “It should never have to be used as a platform to 'get a point across.’ All that does is grant political leverage to people who haven't been elected.”

Notolecta, infamous for his abrasive and unpolished behavior, quickly took the opportunity to question the merits of the legislation. “I don't know why we think a voice in the Senate ought to be restricted to 6 senators, it's just asking for ill-informed bad legislation,” he speculated. “If the Senators personally think they are less off because of [honored citizen] speaking privileges I don't give a [expletive],” Notolecta gruffly declared without regard to using crude language in the Palace of the People.

Senator Cerian Quilor, who voted against the amendment, pushed back against McEntire’s notion that President Darcness lacked decisiveness in the decision. “I think Darcness showed decisiveness, not a lack of it, here.” Cerian Quilor also questioned if an actual problem exists. "Someone still needs to explain (and defend) their claim as to what problem is being corrected with this removal," he asked.

Rach, the founder of the Freedom and Equality Party, which lists the revocation of honored citizen speaking rights as one of its core platform issues, issued a statement to the EBC regarding the president’s decision. “This referendum has been a slight speedbump, but it has made me so proud to see how so many people have responded positively to this concept,” she said. “The acrimonious opposition by a minority of people has been unfortunate and surprising.”

President Darcness defended his decision in an exclusive interview with the EBC. “This is a decision that affects our core democratic principles. The Senate was deeply split on this case, and so are the people,” he said. “It’s impossible to say signature or veto easily portrays the will of the people, so I want them to speak for themselves.”

Supreme Chancellor Mousebumples opened debate on the referendum today, which will continue for at least 72 hours. The referendum must receive a simple majority to pass.
 
I think this article gets it wrong. It portrays the reaction as if it were 50/50. The opposition to this act has been a clear albeit vocal minority and they should be treated as a minority.
 
" ... The Senate was deeply split on this case, and so are the people,” he said. “It’s impossible to say signature or veto easily portrays the will of the people, so I want them to speak for themselves.”

Good lord this has to be the absolute biggest load of rhetorical malarkey I've ever read. C'mon. Look, if someone wants to support or oppose this on the merits I can respect that, but to just duck this by sending it to a referendum and then issue a mind-numbingly transparent statement that reads "I don't want to lose political capital on this so I'll just kick the can and hope I don't get flak for it" is disturbing.

I also want to take a second to talk about this "deeply split" verbage. Calling this "deeply split" is the rhetorical equivalent of being a porn fluffer. Unless we went up to like 8 Senators the minimum amount of votes you'd likely need to pass something is 4. 4 out of 6 isn't deeply split, it's 66% of the Senate. "Deeply split" would be if 3 Senators abstained from voting altogether, 2 voted for it, and 1 voted against. This isn't "deeply split" this is "searching for a reason to make it sound like I'm not trying to punt this."

I'm used to having Marco Rubio as my Senator, but who knew he's my President now, too?


 
The Senate was split?

How in the world....? It was 4 to 2.... Was something else meant with those words?
 
4 to 2 is a split when there's only 6 people. Its actually uncommon for the Senate not to be 5 to 1 or 6 to 0, these days, from my experience.

And I'm quite certain you're overstating how much support you guys have, Rach. This isn't some 'tiny minority' rejecting this misapplied nonsense. In the end, it may be a minority (though I don't think it will), but I'm fairly certain it isn't 'tiny'.
 
Cerian Quilor said:
4 to 2 is a split when there's only 6 people. Its actually uncommon for the Senate not to be 5 to 1 or 6 to 0, these days, from my experience.

And I'm quite certain you're overstating how much support you guys have, Rach. This isn't some 'tiny minority' rejecting this misapplied nonsense. In the end, it may be a minority (though I don't think it will), but I'm fairly certain it isn't 'tiny'.


First the numbers and now you're quoting the word 'tiny' and 'tiny minority'... but that is a phrase entirely of your own creation. I said 'VOCAL minority'.
 
I misread your post. I stand corrected there. Fair enough.

But I still stand by my point that in a group of only six people that are usually unanimous or nearly unanimous, 2 disseters is a meaningful amount of dissent.

Also, I would appreciate it if you never accused me of being drunk ever again, even in jest. I don't drink. And I never will. Call me crazy, sleep-deprived, or any number of other things, but not drunk or high, please, and I mean this OOC and IC.
 
Rach said:
The opposition to this act has been a clear albeit vocal minority and they should be treated as a minority.
How do you treat someone as a minority? Truly, I'd like to know.
 
Well, apparently Rach would treat a minority by shutting them up and ignoring their protests.
 
And acting like they don't deserve to be mentioned by the Press. Because obviously we need to ignore all minority opinions always.
 
Cerian Quilor said:
And acting like they don't deserve to be mentioned by the Press. Because obviously we need to ignore all minority opinions always.
There is an issue with the media portraying issues as being 50/50 issues where both sides of the debate deserve equal time and effort. For issues such as climate change for example, despite scientific consensus for example the media often will portray both sides of it equally. The act itself is not controversial like the article states. Much more controversial than the act itself was the decision to put it to a referendum. Is every proposal that does not get 100% approval in the Senate controversial?

Minority opinions should be covered, but placed in the proper perspective. This article was overly generous, for example calling the reaction to the act mixed when it has only been a vocal minority of people making a lot of noise. This should not be portrayed as mixed or controversial. Far more controversial was the decision to put the act to a referendum if we're going by the level of support for the act. It was a well written, but poor because it missed the point entirely.
 
I’m going to push back against your notion that this article is somehow “poor,” especially considering that your argument is that it presents both sides equally. That represents a misunderstanding of journalism.

First, the article doesn’t attempt to quantify the levels of support for each side. That’s not the purpose, rather the purpose is to present that both sides have made arguments regarding the matter.

Additionally, your notion that the opposition in the minority is reflected in your quote. Your whole point about the EBC not making mention that the opposition is in the minority is moot, as you are actually quoted making that statement.

The EBC reached out to you for a statement. If you want to talk about being generous, THAT was generous. You had not engaged at all in the recent public discussion, yet the EBC thought your perspective mattered and was important enough to include. If that’s “poor,” then maybe the EBC just won’t reach out for your comment going forward.

If you really want to quantify or characterize the coverage of this article, let’s do it.

There are 13 paragraphs in the article. Six of these paragraphs either criticize the president’s decision to send to referendum or reference support for the amendment. Four of the paragraphs were neutral or simply stated facts. Three paragraphs, and only three paragraphs (Noto’s, Cerian Quilor’s, and the quote from Darcness) represent the opposition.

So in the end, “your side” received six paragraphs of coverage, while the “opposition” received three paragraphs.
 
Rach, the reaction was mixed. Mixed doesn't mean '50/50', it just means not universally one thing, which it hardly was. You might have expected or felt like you deserved some easy cakewalk with no opposition, but you didn't get any at all. And it remains to be seen if your side is the true majority or not.
 
I completely agree with Cerian. It seems as if all your recent posts have done is emphasize that currently a majority (possibly) support the amendment. You've basically stopped actually arguing for your cause.
 
Cerian Quilor said:
Rach, the reaction was mixed. Mixed doesn't mean '50/50', it just means not universally one thing, which it hardly was. You might have expected or felt like you deserved some easy cakewalk with no opposition, but you didn't get any at all. And it remains to be seen if your side is the true majority or not.
This is a good point, mixed doesn't always mean evenly divided. When I buy mixed greens, I actually prefer that there's more arugula than baby romaine or radicchio.
 
McEntire said:
Cerian Quilor said:
Rach, the reaction was mixed. Mixed doesn't mean '50/50', it just means not universally one thing, which it hardly was. You might have expected or felt like you deserved some easy cakewalk with no opposition, but you didn't get any at all. And it remains to be seen if your side is the true majority or not.
This is a good point, mixed doesn't always mean evenly divided. When I buy mixed greens, I actually prefer that there's more arugula than baby romaine or radicchio.
:lol:

And I believe McEntire wins the thread.

Out of curiousity, McEntire, would you agree with my contention that at least in modern history, unanimity or only one dissenting vote has been the generalized norm in the Senate? That's certainly been my lived experience, but maybe I'm missing something?
 
Back
Top