Senate Poised To Ram Through Historic Constitutional Amendment

[HEM]

​

"Senate Poised To Ram Through Historic Constitutional Amendment"
HEM
Managing Editor

After a month of deliberation and little consensus on the fate of the executive split, the Senate has made a rapid-fire detour is now just hours away from voting on a historic constitutional amendment that would overhaul the election of the executive branch.

Depending on the exact timing of passage, the bill could potentially have been under discussion for less than 24 hours before being brought to the executive for signature or veto. In comparison, the Senate spent a week deliberating on the ovation of Darcness, and two days deliberating the judicial nomination of Malashaan -- likely one of the most qualified candidates to ever receive such a court appointment.

It appears likely that there are sufficient votes for the change. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds absolute majority, and while four Senators voted against re-opening the legislation, Speaker Lloenflys had indicated that he leaned toward supporting the amendment when it comes to a final vote, but is now fully undecided. Senator Deepest House who has led the charge for a reunified executive, is also a potential swing vote. He has said the move to directly elected Chief of State would be a "good change" but opposed re-opening the discussion to "remain focused" on the larger reform conversations.

Other obstacles to passage would involve executive veto. Chief Pichtonia, who was willing to be the thorn in the eye of many Senators by vetoing executive order reform, has told ENN on the record that barring a damning legislative assessment from Attorney General Bowzin, he would not veto the legislation. Sending the legislation to referendum would make it very difficult for the Chancellery to implement changes in advance of the upcoming Chief of State elections.

The motivations around this rushed maneuver are still uncertain, with Chief Pichtonia verifying to ENN that nobody from the Senate reached out to him to lobby him on his decision. It's possible that new polling showing a considerable uptick in skepticism toward a reunified executive (or "executive merge") has instilled urgency in Senators to accomplish something in a truncated timeline.

Only a few Senators have engaged in public threads on this topic -- with criticisms on timeline falling on mostly deaf ears. Senator Peeps has repeatedly urged citizens to "search discord" for answers. But the Discord logs are difficult to parse and little substantive discussion (mostly conversation about wanting to get it done before the election) was found by ENN in a 10 minute search for certain keywords.

-30-​

 

[Peeps]

I am going to quote what I put in the GH here.

So there seems to be some misunderstanding, understandable misunderstanding, mut misunderstanding nonetheless. This measure was not something that we decided would be the end of all reform discussion and a we did it sticker. The discussion was started because we want to give new members a taste of Euro's favorite pastimes, elections. Retaining the giant bump we just got is something that we should all be very concerned about, and I think this measure is both right and will work in that regard.

As well as reiterate one more time that this is not a substitute for the reform conversations that we are having, merely a first step.

 

[HEM]

I am going to quote what I put in the GH here.

So there seems to be some misunderstanding, understandable misunderstanding, mut misunderstanding nonetheless. This measure was not something that we decided would be the end of all reform discussion and a we did it sticker. The discussion was started because we want to give new members a taste of Euro's favorite pastimes, elections. Retaining the giant bump we just got is something that we should all be very concerned about, and I think this measure is both right and will work in that regard.

As well as reiterate one more time that this is not a substitute for the reform conversations that we are having, merely a first step.

I don’t think that addresses the concern about how rushed this is though!

 

[Sopo]

If this had passed when it was originally brought up, it would have been fine. I don't understand the sudden change of heart to make this dramatic of a change so soon before the election, or, frankly, where it came from. It re-materialized out of thin air, seemingly. I opposed it then, I opposed it now, but I think the timing makes this much more undesirable.

 

[Prim]

Should I mention that we "rammed through" the Executive Split under the same pretenses? With similar criticisms about the speed of the final bill?
The final bill draft was presented on a Wednesday, moved to second reading on that Friday, and voted on and passed that Saturday. After no discussion had taken place for 23 days.

This bill was discussed by many Senators before the tabling as well.

Also, I have opposed the Senate election mechanism since the end of my term as CoS. I didn't particularly think that the HEM vs. JayDee election was particularly stunning or a relief from concerns about non-competitiveness, for me anyway.

 

[HEM]

Should I mention that we "rammed through" the Executive Split under the same pretenses? With similar criticisms about the speed of the final bill?

This bill was discussed before the tabling as well.

Also, I have opposed the Senate election mechanism since the end of my term as CoS. I didn't particularly think that the HEM vs. JayDee election was particularly stunning or a relief from concerns about non-competitiveness, for me anyway.

That discussion lasted nearly half a year vs. 24 hours (or like a few days if you want to add in the discussion from earlier in the term that was tabled).

 

[Prim]

This isn't unprecedented, is what I'm saying here.

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

This bill was discussed before the tabling as well.

Yes, this bill was discussed for much longer than a day, and your timeline is disingenuous. When the bill was originally tabled, it was stated that if we were unhappy with the progress of the main discussion we had this bill in our pocket, and here we are. Not rammed through if it was in the works since the start of the term.

 

[GraVandius]

It was also well established that the core principle of that reform bill was popular with the people (a split executive), that's not necessarily the case here.

 

[McEntire]

I'd note that it would require 8 citizen signatures to send this bill to a referendum.

 

[Lloenflys]

I'll just point out that I'm not sure what the Senate is going to do tonight, because I'm not sure what I'm going to do tonight. If you actually look at what I wrote, I did not commit to voting in favor of final passage. I gave a conditional and said I "likely" would. Why did I not just say I would? Because I hadn't decided yet. And indeed, I still haven't decided. In fact, I'm leaning toward voting no because I do think there are significant concerns with passing this too close to a standing period. The most likely scenario even if it were approved by both executives is that it wouldn't happen until standing is open already, and that gets a little messy. So contrary to the reporting here by the ENN, this Senator is at this point neither a "Yes" or a "No" on final passage.

 

[HEM]

This bill was discussed before the tabling as well.

Yes, this bill was discussed for much longer than a day, and your timeline is disingenuous. When the bill was originally tabled, it was stated that if we were unhappy with the progress of the main discussion we had this bill in our pocket, and here we are. Not rammed through if it was in the works since the start of the term.

The Senate discussed the idea briefly a month ago, it was tabled and no further discussion was had, and now the idea is back with a 24 hour timeline for debate. There's no time to gauge the opinions of the citizenry...at all. That's light years away from the executive split where we discussed for months, we got to the end of the road and there was still ~30% who weren't thrilled with it, but we had the votes and did it.

I'll just point out that I'm not sure what the Senate is going to do tonight, because I'm not sure what I'm going to do tonight. If you actually look at what I wrote, I did not commit to voting in favor of final passage. I gave a conditional and said I "likely" would. Why did I not just say I would? Because I hadn't decided yet. And indeed, I still haven't decided. In fact, I'm leaning toward voting no because I do think there are significant concerns with passing this too close to a standing period. The most likely scenario even if it were approved by both executives is that it wouldn't happen until standing is open already, and that gets a little messy. So contrary to the reporting here by the ENN, this Senator is at this point neither a "Yes" or a "No" on final passage.

I would note that I used the words "indicated" and also followed the discussion of you by introducing DH as "another swing vote" -- implying you were one. I can add an edit to make that more clear though.

 

[Lloenflys]

This bill was discussed before the tabling as well.

Yes, this bill was discussed for much longer than a day, and your timeline is disingenuous. When the bill was originally tabled, it was stated that if we were unhappy with the progress of the main discussion we had this bill in our pocket, and here we are. Not rammed through if it was in the works since the start of the term.

The Senate discussed the idea briefly a month ago, it was tabled and no further discussion was had, and now the idea is back with a 24 hour timeline for debate. There's no time to gauge the opinions of the citizenry...at all. That's light years away from the executive split where we discussed for months, we got to the end of the road and there was still ~30% who weren't thrilled with it, but we had the votes and did it.

I'll just point out that I'm not sure what the Senate is going to do tonight, because I'm not sure what I'm going to do tonight. If you actually look at what I wrote, I did not commit to voting in favor of final passage. I gave a conditional and said I "likely" would. Why did I not just say I would? Because I hadn't decided yet. And indeed, I still haven't decided. In fact, I'm leaning toward voting no because I do think there are significant concerns with passing this too close to a standing period. The most likely scenario even if it were approved by both executives is that it wouldn't happen until standing is open already, and that gets a little messy. So contrary to the reporting here by the ENN, this Senator is at this point neither a "Yes" or a "No" on final passage.

I would note that I used the words "indicated" and also followed the discussion of you by introducing DH as "another swing vote" -- implying you were one. I can add an edit to make that more clear though.

No worries, I made a snarky comment and probably shouldn't have, but I mostly wanted to just make sure that people were aware I wasn't a yes. I'm a Schrodinger's Vote until later tonight, but one that is leaning No-wards at present.

 

[Darcness]

This kind of thing is how you end up yelling at people in the Senate chamber.

 

[Kuramia]

This kind of thing is how you end up yelling at people in the Senate chamber.

I do miss the days of arguments and yelling in the Senate. XD

You guys realize that pushing this thing this fast -- for what might be good purposes in engaging new members -- has this perception no matter what your reasoning is. For what's it worth, people against how fast this is (not just shifting focus) have a point. It might be good to have a sit back and consider that point at least.

I mean, I'd reconsider if only because the people crying out right now vote for you....

 

[Darcness]

Well, I'm not part of the 'you guys' here. I'm the one (along with Sopo) telling people to slow down.

 

[Kuramia]

Well, I'm not part of the 'you guys' here. I'm the one (along with Sopo) telling people to slow down.

I know you aren't. XD I didn't how to clarify 'you guys' but figured people like Peeps would get it. I appreciate people sticking to their guns even under pressure, but sometimes it's best to step back and ask 'what's the real issue here and why don't I agree it's an issue?' and 'who is having the issue and where does their expertise come from?'

EDIT: I mean I've been on the 'you guys' side of things before. XD

 

[Rotasu]

If this had passed when it was originally brought up, it would have been fine. I don't understand the sudden change of heart to make this dramatic of a change so soon before the election, or, frankly, where it came from. It re-materialized out of thin air, seemingly. I opposed it then, I opposed it now, but I think the timing makes this much more undesirable.

I think you misunderstand, if you oppose this amendment for its content that’s a different argument. A decent amount of your fellow Senators including myself that find that due to the “boom” of new Citizens it has become desirable to change this election into a direct one. I resent your categorization that this is a sudden change of heart, it was a decision that was formed due to current events!

 

[Darcness]

I think you misunderstand, if you oppose this amendment for its content that’s a different argument. A decent amount of your fellow Senators including myself that find that due to the “boom” of new Citizens it has become desirable to change this election into a direct one. I resent your categorization that this is a sudden change of heart, it was a decision that was formed due to current events!

And that kind of reactive action is not what the Senate should be about.

 

[HEM]

If this had passed when it was originally brought up, it would have been fine. I don't understand the sudden change of heart to make this dramatic of a change so soon before the election, or, frankly, where it came from. It re-materialized out of thin air, seemingly. I opposed it then, I opposed it now, but I think the timing makes this much more undesirable.

I think you misunderstand, if you oppose this amendment for its content that’s a different argument. A decent amount of your fellow Senators including myself that find that due to the “boom” of new Citizens it has become desirable to change this election into a direct one. I resent your categorization that this is a sudden change of heart, it was a decision that was formed due to current events!

I think the counter argument to that is we have to design the best system to last the long-haul, not changing it every time we think we see a short term gain. I’m not definitely saying that the direct election of the Chief of State is bad (or good) for that matter, but people aren’t being given the chance to weigh in with such a truncated timeline from bringing it back up again to a vote.