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.
 
Cerian Quilor said:
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?
I would say that's typically true, yes. On this specific issue, you can say that there was both strong support and strong opposition within the Senate. That would be consistent with saying that the reaction was "mixed" although I don't know that it speaks to the Senate being "deeply divided" on the issue, given that we passed it with what constitutes a super-majority.

That's really the part of what the President said that I take issue with. Two dissenting votes, while not typical, does not represent an unclear outcome that needs to be decided by the people. That's a decisive outcome.
 
Deepest House said:
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.
I decided to do a quick search of New York Times articles to find the word 'controversial' and nearly all articles appear to use that word in the article itself rather than the headlines which appear to be more a statement of facts.

'Japan Cabinet Approves Bill to Allow Emperor to Abdicate'
"It also makes no reference to the controversial issue of changing the system to allow women to inherit the throne, or to stay in the imperial family upon marriage, Japanese media said, although political parties are discussing a separate resolution on the topic."

'Venezuelan Leader to Trump: 'Get Your Pig Hands Out of Here''
"Ortega Diaz broke with the government shortly after the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in March, calling it a "rupture" of the constitutional order. Days later Congress partially reversed its decision amid international outcry."

'Duterte Says China's Xi Threatened War if Philippines Drills for Oil'
"Duterte has a reputation for his candid, at times incendiary, remarks and his office typically backpeddles on his behalf and blames the media for distorting his most controversial comments."

'Canada Tests Lower Age for Pot Legalization'
"The most controversial thing about Canada's move to legalize marijuana nationwide may be setting the minimum age for use at 18 — three years lower than in U.S. states that have embraced legalization — a move that is being closely watched across the continent."

'Macron’s Cabinet Gives Glimpse of How He Plans to Govern France'
"Mr. Macron and Mr. Philippe also need to win public support for their program, which includes controversial changes to labor law and in how pension benefits are calculated. Those measures could draw hundreds of thousands of people into the streets in protest."

This was the most recent headline I saw that actually used the word controversial:

'Controversial Milwaukee County Sheriff Says Taking U.S. Homeland Security Post'



Surely you can see how the article might seem biased by calling the proposal 'mixed' & 'controversial'? Particularly when you set the tone in the article by calling the proposal controversial from the very start (in the title which will be the most read)? From what I could see, you did not make any such judgments on anyone else's decision. Yes, you included other peoples opinions... but -your- own opinion appears to be revealed by what you specifically wrote. Just like those NYT articles, the headline sets the tone.

Surely it's a bit strange to write it like that?
 
McEntire said:
Cerian Quilor said:
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?
I would say that's typically true, yes. On this specific issue, you can say that there was both strong support and strong opposition within the Senate. That would be consistent with saying that the reaction was "mixed" although I don't know that it speaks to the Senate being "deeply divided" on the issue, given that we passed it with what constitutes a super-majority.

That's really the part of what the President said that I take issue with. Two dissenting votes, while not typical, does not represent an unclear outcome that needs to be decided by the people. That's a decisive outcome.
I suppose that's arguably an approaching fair point.
 
I used the term controversial as a synonym for contentious, divisive, and provocative, all of which would be appropriate descriptors of the debate surrounding the bill. Controversial doesn’t not have a unique negative qualitative meaning, it simply means something on which there is not agreement. The controversial nature surrounding the bill was amplified by the president’s decision to send to referendum rather than sign or veto.

Simply put, the use of controversial in the headline was not a qualitative statement on the merits of the bill based on my opinion, rather it was an accurate reflection of the varied opinions on it publicly expressed and debated over an extended period of time, amplified by the president’s decision.

There is nothing wrong or strange, from a journalistic standards and ethics standpoint, about the headline.
 
Deepest House said:
I used the term controversial as a synonym for contentious, divisive, and provocative, all of which would be appropriate descriptors of the debate surrounding the bill. Controversial doesn’t not have a unique negative qualitative meaning, it simply means something on which there is not agreement. The controversial nature surrounding the bill was amplified by the president’s decision to send to referendum rather than sign or veto.

Simply put, the use of controversial in the headline was not a qualitative statement on the merits of the bill based on my opinion, rather it was an accurate reflection of the varied opinions on it publicly expressed and debated over an extended period of time, amplified by the president’s decision.

There is nothing wrong or strange, from a journalistic standards and ethics standpoint, about the headline.
You called the Amendment itself controversial in the title, not the debate surrounding it as you are suggesting now. It was not an accurate reflection of the bill itself. While not 'wrong' it was biased and distorted reality.
 
Something can be controversial because it is a radical idea, or it can be controversial because the debate that surrounds it. You're stuck on the former without acknowledging the latter.
 
We shouldn't be so nitpicky about such trivial things. These arguments have descended into meaningless debate.
 
Le Libertia said:
We shouldn't be so nitpicky about such trivial things. These arguments have descended into meaningless debate.
You've been in Europeia two months and haven't realized that meaningless debate is kind of our jam? :p :lol:
 
Le Libertia said:
We shouldn't be so nitpicky about such trivial things. These arguments have descended into meaningless debate.
There is currently an ongoing 4 page debate about putting ketchup on hot dogs and this surprises you?
 
JayDee said:
Le Libertia said:
We shouldn't be so nitpicky about such trivial things. These arguments have descended into meaningless debate.
There is currently an ongoing 4 page debate about putting ketchup on hot dogs and this surprises you?
Jesus Jaydee, that is a serious topic for debate. Why would you bring it up here?
 
JayDee said:
Le Libertia said:
We shouldn't be so nitpicky about such trivial things. These arguments have descended into meaningless debate.
There is currently an ongoing 4 page debate about putting ketchup on hot dogs and this surprises you?
At least that's in Republic Square. This debate came from arguing about newspaper bias to arguing the definition of 'controversial.' Am I being nitpicky about them being nitpicky? Maybe. :p
 
Le Libertia said:
JayDee said:
Le Libertia said:
We shouldn't be so nitpicky about such trivial things. These arguments have descended into meaningless debate.
There is currently an ongoing 4 page debate about putting ketchup on hot dogs and this surprises you?
At least that's in Republic Square. This debate came from arguing about newspaper bias to arguing the definition of 'controversial.' Am I being nitpicky about them being nitpicky? Maybe. :p
I am nitpicking your propensity to be nitpicky about Rach's nitpickiness.
 
I am in favor of the amendment and am finding most of the other people in support of it insufferable right now.
 
I am against the amendment, but I dont really care. The amendment itself has caused far more problems than HC speaking rights ever have, or for that matter the lack of HC speaking rights will ever have.
 
Drecq said:
I am against the amendment, but I dont really care. The amendment itself has caused far more problems than HC speaking rights ever have, or for that matter the lack of HC speaking rights will ever have.
Perfectly summed up.
 
That's how we do it in Europeia. We imagine solutions to problems that don't exist and then make more problems implementing them. :p
 
How dare we cause our distinguished members to throw temper tantrums by proposing democratic reform.
 
Rach said:
How dare we cause our distinguished members to throw temper tantrums by proposing democratic reform.
There's nothing 'democratic' about this, Rachel. It doesn't expand the franchise or remove some sort of restriction.

It's populist, not democratic.
 
Back
Top