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:
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.
At least you agree about the temper tantrums.
 
I just love how you need to put words and ideas into other people's mouths to feel like you've won the argument, Rach. Such logic.
 
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.
What problems? Please I'd love to know how rigorous - albeit somewhat unnecessary - debate about this topic and its tangential details is a problem.
 
Lethen said:
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.
What problems? Please I'd love to know how rigorous - albeit somewhat unnecessary - debate about this topic and its tangential details is a problem.
I think he more means how some of the debates and discussions got a bit out of hand at time. Some people were trolling instead of making meaningful Senate, there have also be some assertions/ attacks from each side that were just absurd. But overall it's been a good Senate and Senate itself is healthy. I mean this has been the most active discussion on a while.
 
Rigorous debate? The debate thread is 9 pages. If Im generous Id call maybe half of that debate of any kind. The rest could very kindly be referred to as an argument, but more of the kind drunk, angry relatives have on thanksgiving.
 
Drecq said:
Rigorous debate? The debate thread is 9 pages. If Im generous Id call maybe half of that debate of any kind. The rest could very kindly be referred to as an argument, but more of the kind drunk, angry relatives have on thanksgiving.
7 pages in the grand hall, 8 in the CA, 3 more here, whatever was in the senate. This topic has been heavily debated. Also even 7 is a lot, topics don't typically get that much attention in one or two days anymore. I agree that some of the posts have been something much different than debate, but a good amount of actual debate is occurring.
 
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.

There's nothing decisive about it. 4/6 might be a 'super-majority', but's it's also one vote away from failing to pass. If this Senate had voted 5-0 or even 4-1, then perhaps taking umbrage might make sense, but this vote is literally the most divided it could possibly be and still make it to the President's desk. I'm not really sure how you're able to consider this a 'decisive outcome'.
 
@Drecq: To be fair, several pages worth of posts in these assorted threads contained sidetracked discussions like this one.
 
Who threw a temper tantrum? Or is this another one of those things where the opposition is called ridiculous so often that it must be true?
 
Notolecta said:
Drecq said:
Rigorous debate? The debate thread is 9 pages. If Im generous Id call maybe half of that debate of any kind. The rest could very kindly be referred to as an argument, but more of the kind drunk, angry relatives have on thanksgiving.
7 pages in the grand hall, 8 in the CA, 3 more here, whatever was in the senate. This topic has been heavily debated. Also even 7 is a lot, topics don't typically get that much attention in one or two days anymore. I agree that some of the posts have been something much different than debate, but a good amount of actual debate is occurring.
In the space of what, 4 or 5 days, too?

It is true that the arguments have become cyclic and repetitive at times, as well as heated. I have said things I didn't mean to, and other people have, too. I would hardly say that it fully devolved to bickering at any point, that's just offensive to the people who have put time and effort into constructing their arguments. If anything, it's been helpful to renew our understanding of the merits of composure, especially in the middle of debate.
 
I wasnt saying that there wasnt any debate, or any rigorous debate, or that we shouldnt debate. I was saying that if half of what weve posted is debate and the other half is angry bickering, then you cant say its all debate or that Im making up the existence of problems. There are problems with the reaction to this referendum. And there are no problems with either having HCs speak in the Senate or not having the HCs speak in the Senate. So there are fewer problems with either outcome than the amendment itself has caused. Which is what I stated before Lethen said that its all rigorous debate and there are no problems.
 
Drecq said:
I wasnt saying that there wasnt any debate, or any rigorous debate, or that we shouldnt debate. I was saying that if half of what weve posted is debate and the other half is angry bickering, then you cant say its all debate or that Im making up the existence of problems. There are problems with the reaction to this referendum. And there are no problems with either having HCs speak in the Senate or not having the HCs speak in the Senate. So there are fewer problems with either outcome than the amendment itself has caused. Which is what I stated before Lethen said that its all rigorous debate and there are no problems.
I'm not sure I understand. It was controversial from the very beginning, the referendum was announced in response to controversy and even that was controversial. I would be more surprised if the reaction to the referendum was unanimous, so as it is I don't see a problem. Apparently, what you deem 'bickering' is what I would call 'cyclic, repetitive and heated debate'. Subjectivity.

I'm not sure if this is the "problem" you were referring to, but in my opinion, people's reactions to Darcness are independent of the topic of debate. HEM made a good point previously.
 
I think the problem is that after a while people are pretty set on their stance and eventually people are just repeating the same things to other people over and over again to no effect. So things become heated.
 
Rach said:
I think the problem is that after a while people are pretty set on their stance and eventually people are just repeating the same things to other people over and over again to no effect. So things become heated.
More or less, probably.
 
Cerian Quilor said:
Rach said:
I think the problem is that after a while people are pretty set on their stance and eventually people are just repeating the same things to other people over and over again to no effect. So things become heated.
More or less, probably.
I disagree!!!!
 
Erica said:
Cerian Quilor said:
Rach said:
I think the problem is that after a while people are pretty set on their stance and eventually people are just repeating the same things to other people over and over again to no effect. So things become heated.
More or less, probably.
I disagree!!!!
I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate?
 
Darcness said:
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.

There's nothing decisive about it. 4/6 might be a 'super-majority', but's it's also one vote away from failing to pass. If this Senate had voted 5-0 or even 4-1, then perhaps taking umbrage might make sense, but this vote is literally the most divided it could possibly be and still make it to the President's desk. I'm not really sure how you're able to consider this a 'decisive outcome'.
This is... wrong. At least in terms of how our government works. 4-2 is decisive (which here means "settling an issue; producing a definite result"). Yes, because we have a small Senate, it doesn't take many votes to achieve a 2/3 majority, but that's the way it is. If we had a bigger Senate, it would take more votes to get to 2/3 majority, but if ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.

And you're also wrong just on the math. This is not the most divided it could possibly be and still make it to the President's desk. You could have Senators abstain or fail to vote. In this case, all Senators registered an opinion, and a super-majority of them went one way. Again, there are many powers the Senate could exercise with a 2/3 threshold. If you're arguing for a larger Senate, there are many that would agree with you. But if you're arguing that this wasn't a decisive outcome, you are incorrect Mr. President.
 
If you don't like the referendum provision, change the Constitution.

Non-unanimous votes are relatively uncommon; decisions with two dissenting votes are rare. If you're going to have a referendum provision, this is precisely the sort of instance to invoke it.
 
Back
Top