Senators Punt on Basic Duty, Sparking Public Condemnation






Senators Punt on Basic Duty, Sparking Public Condemnation

Written by Deepest House

(Europeia, February 1, 2021) - Senators Baobab, UPC, and Xecrio abstained from voting on the Honoured Expansion Amendment (2021), resulting in the bill failing to pass by a vote of 2-2-3. The bill proposed allowing the region to bestow Europeia’s highest honors to non-citizens.

In the aftermath of the vote, citizens took to the Grand Hall and Discord to register their objections to the abstentions.

“I will try to avoid making crass accusations, but it seems to me that those voting Abstain are only trying to save political points for potential reelection,” said JayDee, an experienced senator and legislator. “I hope this is not the case, but it is unfortunate that the debate has been so heated and yet the outcome is rather uninspiring.”

Ervald joined JayDee in questioning the result. “I thought I was disappointed in this bill failing but now I am even more disappointed in the senators voting Abstain. We had extensive discussions on this bill with both sides drawing up compelling arguments,” he said after the vote. “You couldn't decide if you supported it or not? I may have disagreed with the senators voting Nay but at least they made their line of thought clear on the issue.”

On the region’s Discord server, immediate constituent feedback was similarly harsh for the elected representatives.

“I personally am not a fan of the honored citizen expansion for reasons laid out on the forum by others, but I do think abstains are a bit of a cop-out,” said Prim, another veteran of the legislative chamber. “I know it’s a big ask, but I wish Senators voted their conscience instead of catering to public or peer pressure.”

With public displeasure mounting, Senator UPC offered an explanation after the vote. “I abstained because I was ambivalent,” the senator said. “If people abstained on EVERY piece of legislation ok that’s a problem.”

The potential for an additional abstention surfaced after the vote as public discussion continued, with Senator Monkey admitting that an abstain vote was a real possibility.

“Actually, I was going to vote abstain but as I was about to I was like, I’ve been talking about this issue for 3 days, it would be bad if the final conclusion I came up with at that point was I can’t make a choice,” Monkey admitted.

The bill generated substantial public debate, with supporters and detractors making their cases in the Grand Hall. Indeed, public debate on the bill was so engaging that Darcness, perhaps in a confused stupor from all the activity, unintentionally wandered onto the Senate floor itself to share his thoughts. He later apologized for his indiscretion and made his way to the Grand Hall.

Proponents of the bill argued that it would allow the region to correct oversights, or to recognize individuals when the lens of time allows greater appreciation of their accomplishments. Detractors argued that potential honorees should be present to win, similar to a raffle of some kind.

As the fate of the vote was becoming clear on the Senate floor, Calvin Coolidge took to the Grand Hall to share remarks on what would become a failed vote.

“It seems it was not in the cards with this Senate, and that's a shame,” the senator said. “Hopefully, we can make this change in the future.”

With the vote now closed and the issue off the immediate agenda, the question turns to the political future of the senators who abstained. With clear public objection to the abstentions, it remains to be seen how this vote will impact future electoral prospects. It is possible the electorate will understand these abstentions as an abdication of duty; however also possible is that the public could quickly move on to other issues it deems more important, without future consequences for the legislators. Only time will tell.
 
I doubt this will have any impact on the futures of Bao, UPC, and Nate. This is a very minor issue and will likely be overshadowed by bigger and more important issues as the term progresses, so long as this trend doesn't continue. If we see more abstentions though, that's when we need to start thinking it over and worrying about their future careers.

As for my stance on the bill, I really didn't comment on it because I really don't care. Personally I lean a bit more towards the bill, as I think anyone who's worthy should be honored regardless of whether they're in the region or not, but that's just me personally and I'm not strongly for that position and could be swayed rather easily.
 
This is well written, DH.
 
While I don't think this will affect their electability per se, I do think they'll have to put in a tad more effort to secure public confidence. However, reelection is ~60 days away and we tend to get easily distracted so it would be no surprise if this was forgotten by the time elections opened.
 
Good overview, and snagging quotes from discord, props.

The one thing I have slight regrets about is the fact that UPC was the only one of the abstainers present in Eurochat when the hubbub arose, and he sort of symbolically took a lot of the heat and that was a bit unfair for him. Apologies to UPC for that situation.
 
If the abstention were a punting of basic duty, we wouldn’t allow it. Not voting at all would have been an abstention of public duty. I don’t like the abstentions but I think the framing here is far too strong.
 
If the abstention were a punting of basic duty, we wouldn’t allow it. Not voting at all would have been an abstention of public duty. I don’t like the abstentions but I think the framing here is far too strong.
That's why it's a 'punt', man. Not voting would be walking off the field. That said, this level of commentary belongs on the public thread, rather than in the Newsroom (unless you're really making a case to have the article dropped, in which case I suggest you get your local MinComm to weigh in). FML why can't I read forum headings?

As for the article itself...
Proponents of the bill argued that it would allow the region to correct oversights, or to recognize individuals when the lens of time allows greater appreciation of their accomplishments. Detractors argued that potential honorees should be present to win, similar to a raffle of some kind.
This graph seems oddly placed. It's supposed to frame the vote, but it's almost at the end like a footnote. I'd try to make it the second graph. The first graph ends with "The bill proposed..." which gives you the right lead-in for this content, and then you can jump to the 'after the vote, ...'
 
If the abstention were a punting of basic duty, we wouldn’t allow it. Not voting at all would have been an abstention of public duty. I don’t like the abstentions but I think the framing here is far too strong.
That's why it's a 'punt', man. Not voting would be walking off the field. That said, this level of commentary belongs on the public thread, rather than in the Newsroom (unless you're really making a case to have the article dropped, in which case I suggest you get your local MinComm to weigh in). FML why can't I read forum headings?

As for the article itself...
Proponents of the bill argued that it would allow the region to correct oversights, or to recognize individuals when the lens of time allows greater appreciation of their accomplishments. Detractors argued that potential honorees should be present to win, similar to a raffle of some kind.
This graph seems oddly placed. It's supposed to frame the vote, but it's almost at the end like a footnote. I'd try to make it the second graph. The first graph ends with "The bill proposed..." which gives you the right lead-in for this content, and then you can jump to the 'after the vote, ...'

My new favorite thing is Darc wandering into random conversations and thinking he's someplace he isn't ... especially since this article has the best writeup of that situation that could have possibly been done :LOL:
 
As usual, a very well done article, DH. I think this pretty accurately captures the region's take on this issue surrounding how the bill failed. I have to admit that I was disappointed the bill failed, but, like Ervald, was more disappointed that we don't really know why. I have nothing against Senators voting Abstain if they feel they have to, but I sincerely hope the reasoning for every Senator wasn't just ambivalence. We run for Senate because we have a vision for the region and philosophy regarding legislation. If there's something we don't know, we figure it out via the debate period or independent research. We can't know everything about everything in this region, but we should know enough about a bill by the time it comes up for a vote, and I think every Senator had ample opportunity in this case.

All of that is to say I think the Senators who have not yet offered a public explanation for their vote owe the public some sort of explanation for why they voted the way they did, and I think this article is as good a place as any. So, @Xecrio and @Baobab?
 
I don't have to explain anything. I have a right to vote the way I did.

To give a "reason" would be that I didn't know how to vote. My mind was very torn.
But you initially said you supported the amendment - so I'm not sure you should be indignant that folks are curious about what changed.
 
I don't have to explain anything. I have a right to vote the way I did.

To give a "reason" would be that I didn't know how to vote. My mind was very torn.
I... what?
 
Great article DH, and very timely too!

Like I said in the article, I was very conflicted going into the vote as well, and almost considered voting abstain, like some of my fellow senators. In the end however, I felt that it was my responsibility, as an elected senator, to consider arguments from both sides and make up my mind, especially after the opportunity to hear arguments for 3 or 4 days from both sides, as well as comments from Grand Halls.

I can understand the feeling of indecisiveness that may accompany proposals like these, but the people elect senators to reason through proposals and come to a conclusion, so it does come across as a little bit of a cop-out when senators voted abstain, especially with most of them even voting within the first 2 hours of the vote being open.

In the future, hopefully senators are more willing to express their indecisiveness early on in the process, and seek clarification or further information to make a choice one way or another.
 
In the future, hopefully senators are more willing to express their indecisiveness early on in the process, and seek clarification or further information to make a choice one way or another.
As Speaker, I echo this. Had I known that so many of our Senators were still torn on this matter days after they had last posted, I would have delayed calling the vote. I gave a day of notice that the vote would be coming, and checked in on the floor to ensure everyone had said as much as they wanted to say before we voted, and we still had this happen. Especially since the last thing Nate said was in support of the bill, and Baobab liked my post reasoning out why I was voting for the bill (and not any other post in the thread), the fact that they both abstained was a surprise. Obviously, these things happen, but I hope it doesn't become a habit. :p
 
This is really nice coverage, thank you DH!

I don't think I have much to add beyond what's already been said - I don't have a problem with the abstentions themselves, just by the lack of communication preceding them. To be fair, Baobab did suggest he would be likely to abstain, but to me it would have been preferable to see more engagement with the arguments made after those posts; I think there's an element of accountability to the public there, because if a senator doesn't update us with their stance, we have no way to engage with them on the issue.

It's not a bill of momentous significance though - I don't think this will be a huge deal for the senators involved.
 
To address the issue at hand:

I don't know whether this is a formal apology as such, but I would like to take some time to explain my actions in the Senate, and to clear up any lasting confusion surrounding my intentions.

Initially, it was my intention to vote aye. After a fellow Senator made a post against the bill, my mind changed. My first mistake is not posting in the relevant thread to update the senate that I had changed my mind. Perhaps people are worried that my actions the other day have the potential to repeat themselves. I'd like to assure everyone that this isn't something that I'd like to see occur.

I'm not going to be voting abstain on every piece of legislation. This one was just the one where I hadn't made my mind up at the time of voting. It was a stupid decision to vote there and then when I clearly wasn't "in the right frame of mind" to vote at that moment.

I perhaps made a an error. An error that was confusing and not backed up by a reasonable explanation. The important thing is to learn from such errors and improve going forward. There is still a significant way to go in this Senate term, and I want to do my best. Certainly more than I have already done. I hope that this explanation somewhat satisfies those asking for one.

Yours,

Xecrio
 
Once the discussion began, I knew I would likely abstain, due to my lack of experience on this issue. I sincerely apologize if you believe that voting abstain was a mistake on my end, I really do not see it. The reason I abstained is very simple, if I voted Aye, it'd be irresponsible, seeing as I have no experience regarding the issue. Some people told me "Why not vote Nay, it's the same", it's not, if I voted Nay, it wouldn't reflect my thoughts, since no major input by any Senator made me lean to either side. I abstained for those reasons, I never have and never will vote for something I know very little about, despite the hours I put into reading through Europeian history, I wasn't there, which changes everything. that's why I abstained.

I am not going to vote for or against a something just because somebody told me to, I reflect my beliefs, once again, it is very irresponsible to vote on something that you have little experience with just because.

Sincerely,

Baobab
 
Once the discussion began, I knew I would likely abstain, due to my lack of experience on this issue. I sincerely apologize if you believe that voting abstain was a mistake on my end, I really do not see it. The reason I abstained is very simple, if I voted Aye, it'd be irresponsible, seeing as I have no experience regarding the issue. Some people told me "Why not vote Nay, it's the same", it's not, if I voted Nay, it wouldn't reflect my thoughts, since no major input by any Senator made me lean to either side. I abstained for those reasons, I never have and never will vote for something I know very little about, despite the hours I put into reading through Europeian history, I wasn't there, which changes everything. that's why I abstained.

I am not going to vote for or against a something just because somebody told me to, I reflect my beliefs, once again, it is very irresponsible to vote on something that you have little experience with just because.
This is your first time in the Senate and haven't served in any other major position. People knew you were "inexperienced", that's not a problem. They elected you to make a decision.

I never have and never will vote for something I know very little about
Then you probably should have asked more questions during discussion and informed yourself, you can't just say you don't know about something and then refuse to vote on it.... this is part of your job, decision-making.
 
This whole discussion and response to the outcome of the vote has been a little weird. I do think that you should provide the citizenry with the reason you vote a particular way for the sake of transparency and with the exception of Nate (who obviously now has provided one) everyone pretty much did. UPC added to his vote with an explanation less than 20 minutes after the vote closed and Bao announced he was abstaining far in advance.

Also in Bao's case, I think his position to abstain was completely reasonable. For someone who has only been active for approximately 6 months, never witnessed an ovation, and clearly has no idea about the potential people this would benefit. There is no real knowledge of the prospective impact someone had on the community if they left 3+ years before you joined. No one commented on that assertion when he made that post days ago and beyond the mear mentioning of Mousebumples there was not any deeper explanation of the people who would potentially benefit from this change either. So I think abstaining is a perfectly reasonable response.

Honestly, I think the indignation on the abstains is mostly driven by the fact that some people thought this was a layup and have been dismissive of the arguments against which obviously ended up swaying some people in the Senate.

Generally when I was Speaker, I tried to whip votes on certain proposals to make sure a consensus had actually been reached, much to the chagrin of a some. I think utilizing the more private options to make sure enough people are on the same page is helpful and ensures that younger more experienced Senators feel comfortable in what can occasionally be a very hot and disconcerting seat at the front of the region.
 
Back
Top