The Casual Player Enfranchisement Act

[devintheroaster]

This thread is the voting thread for the The Casual Player Enfranchisement Act. For the scrutiny thread, you may go here. Thank you!

[Alvero]

I would encourage Members of Congress to vote AGAINST this bill.

I'll reiterate the points I made in the scrutiny thread. Although I think Student is coming with good intentions on this, I just don't think he's provided a strong case for why we need to extend the voting and scrutiny periods. When we voted earlier to shorten these periods, we knew that some of our more inactive players would have a harder time participating, but based on previous experience it was very few, as in like 1-2. Nearly all people voted within the first 3 days. What has been proven so far with legislation coming up for a vote is that shortening these periods has had little to no affect on participation. Student hasn't provided a strong case on why extending these periods an additional 1 day each (for 2 days total) will be more inclusive to these inactive players. Realistically we might get like 1, maybe 2 players who vote during this extended period. Does that few amount of players justify extending this process two days? The downside of extending our voting period is that it makes our process less streamlined and adaptive to change. If, heaven forbid, we enter another crisis and need to pass emergency legislation, those two extra days will be a big deal. We need to make sure our legislative process is adaptive and reacts to changes in the region quickly. 

[devintheroaster]

I will post this as a reminder that I think both bills currently up to vote should be past. They together protect our democracy and ensure that all active players get a say in our government and no nations get left behind. Whether it's tidying up and extending out election process or ensuring our voting process is at least a week to ensure accessibility to ALL active members, I feel this is very important to our democracy.

Lets protect our democracy. Vote FOR on the CPE and the EPA20!

[Deleted]

While the other players make good points, I would recommmend voting FOR the legislation.


For the reason why, we would need to take a realistic look in our region's history.

How many times have we had an issue where legislation isn't moving fast enough to address an outstanding problem? Hardly any.

-versus-

How many times have we had an issue where we passed some piece of legislation and didn't realize a glaring error, like a contradiction or loophole, until much later when it caused us problems? Quite a few times, and it was needlessly painful.

I get that this is an argument about efficiency, but avoiding mistakes in the first place will save us more time in the long run. Scrutiny is essential to inform voters and to catch issues far enough ahead to have an impact on the vote. It's not merely about allowing enough time for people to post: it's also getting the word out, having enough time to catch a mistake, and allowing for responses and edits.

So again, I urge FOR.

[Alvero]

Mar 21, 2020 13:24:03 GMT @ratateague said:

While the other players make good points, I would recommmend voting FOR the legislation.


For the reason why, we would need to take a realistic look in our region's history.

How many times have we had an issue where legislation isn't moving fast enough to address an outstanding problem? Hardly any.

-versus-

How many times have we had an issue where we passed some piece of legislation and didn't realize a glaring error, like a contradiction or loophole, until much later when it caused us problems? Quite a few times, and it was needlessly painful.

I get that this is an argument about efficiency, but avoiding mistakes in the first place will save us more time in the long run. Scrutiny is essential to inform voters and to catch issues far enough ahead to have an impact on the vote. It's not merely about allowing enough time for people to post: it's also getting the word out, having enough time to catch a mistake, and allowing for responses and edits.

So again, I urge FOR.

I can't think of a single time we would have avoided errors in legislation by extending our scrutiny time. Nearly all players lay their case in the first few days. The times we have had errors that needed correcting were because players simply did not engage in the scrutiny process. While I would 100% be on board with having any conversations or ideas about how to improve that, extending the scrutiny period isn't relevant to it. And even if your point were true, it certainty doesn't justify extending the voting period.

[Dekks]

I have ABSTAINED on this bill, since I would personally prefer 4 days of scrutiny and 3 days of voting.