by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .107108109110111112113. . .313314»

I motion to Marvinville to stop the vote and return to the debate stage, as we've discussed amending the bill to change "adequate support" to have a more appropriately high threshold.

Andusre wrote:I motion to Marvinville to stop the vote and return to the debate stage, as we've discussed amending the bill to change "adequate support" to have a more appropriately high threshold.

The vote will continue as a majority of the Senators have voted. The amendment could have been proposed during the debate stage.

Marvinville wrote:The vote will continue as a majority of the Senators have voted. The amendment could have been proposed during the debate stage.

I don't really want to rehash what I said on discord in the #senate channel, but to recap:

>Most senators approve of the bill but are concerned with the definition of adequate consensus, understandably fearing it could leave chambers open to abuse from a majority which speeds through legislation way too quickly.

>Less than 24 hours had passed from the time the debate period was started and concluded, which isn't exactly a great deal of time especially given that everyone here has a real life to contend with.

>You want the house to amend it and send it back to us. This will waste the house's time and our own time.
-->It wastes the house's time because it would have to vote to amend the bill, send it back to us, then pass it again, this time into law.
-->The house is already tight for time - its docket is huge and it has barely over a month until it has to close down for the midterms again. It isn't fair to ask the house to do this for us when we can do it ourselves by sparing a couple of hours.
-->It wastes our time by passing it now and waiting for it to come back to us - which no one wants to do.

There isn't any good reason to go ahead with the vote right now when the bill can be very very easily amended into a better form which will pass Congress more smoothly. Going ahead with the vote imo is not a good judgement call.

Edit: this post was longer than I initially intended it to be lol

Andusre wrote:I don't really want to rehash what I said on discord in the #senate channel, but to recap:

>Most senators approve of the bill but are concerned with the definition of adequate consensus, understandably fearing it could leave chambers open to abuse from a majority which speeds through legislation way too quickly.

>Less than 24 hours had passed from the time the debate period was started and concluded, which isn't exactly a great deal of time especially given that everyone here has a real life to contend with.

>You want the house to amend it and send it back to us. This will waste the house's time and our own time.
-->It wastes the house's time because it would have to vote to amend the bill, send it back to us, then pass it again, this time into law.
-->The house is already tight for time - its docket is huge and it has barely over a month until it has to close down for the midterms again. It isn't fair to ask the house to do this for us when we can do it ourselves by sparing a couple of hours.
-->It wastes our time by passing it now and waiting for it to come back to us - which no one wants to do.

There isn't any good reason to go ahead with the vote right now when the bill can be very very easily amended into a better form which will pass Congress more smoothly. Going ahead with the vote imo is not a good judgement call.

Edit: this post was longer than I initially intended it to be lol

You had plenty of time to propose the amendment, which you did not. Also Zanaana said it would be fine if the bill passed the Senate and was amended in the House. He supports my decision to keep the vote open so the vote shall continue. Please cast your vote.

I've consulted with the following Senators, and all have agreed to sign onto this motion/petition to return to the amendment stage:

Islonia
Dendrobium
World Trade
Brototh
and myself

Since 5 out of 7 senators want to return to that stage, I urge you to reconsider pressing ahead with the vote.

The definition of "adequate consensus" will be changed to read as follows:

Adequate consensus is defined as a group of MPs, constituting two thirds of the chamber, who all voice their support or opposition to the current business of the chamber.

Examples:

When debating a constitutional amendment, adequate consensus would be defined as two thirds in support of the amendment (required for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress) OR one third in opposition to the amendment (as this is enough to cause a constitutional amendment to fail)

When debating a regular bill, adequate consensus would be defined as a two thirds' majority in favour OR in opposition to the bill.

Brototh and Titanne

I have decided to Table the bill and the Senate will be adjourned for a short period of time (also due to personal reasons). This bill will once again be brought to the Senate floor soon for a new debate period.

Opening Amendment Voting - The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act
Authors: Andusre & Islonia
Sponsors: Andusre & Islonia

With Marvinville's permission, we have now begun debating on Amendment A to The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act.

The definition of "adequate consensus" will be changed to read as follows:

Adequate consensus is defined as a group of MPs, constituting two thirds of the chamber, who all voice their support or opposition to the current business of the chamber.

Examples:

When debating a constitutional amendment, adequate consensus would be defined as two thirds in support of the amendment (required for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress) OR one third in opposition to the amendment (as this is enough to cause a constitutional amendment to fail)

When debating a regular bill, adequate consensus would be defined as a two thirds' majority in favour OR in opposition to the bill.

After reconsidering, I think that the amendment does fix some of the issues with the proposed bill, and although I do feel there could be some improvements made elsewhere, it does improve it enough to potentially change my vote to an aye.

I do support Amendment A but I agree with World Trade that the bill can be improved in other areas to be effective. I will likely submit another Amendment later on when I am able to. I would like to apologize to the Senate with the earlier mess but I was making decisions based on what Procedures would allow for and I believe that the best course of action was to table the bill and to restart the process on it, which I hope you agree with. I would like to say that if you are planning to submit an amendment in any future time following 12 hours of debate, please let me know so we can avoid this from happening again. Thank you Andy for your help so far and thank you to the rest of the Senators for being patient.

Aye

Islonia wrote:Aye

We aren't voting yet but thanks for the enthusiasm

While Amendment A does offer a great and greatly needed improvement, I do believe there to still be a major issue: as of now (including Amendement A) an adequate consensus would consist of a 2/3 majority, yet the needed amound of MP's or Senators needed to ask for a return to the debating stage with any legitimacy remains to be 50% + 1 (meaning a simple majority).
I think the problem here is clear. If this would be the case, such a simple majority would, logically speaking, be impossible to achieve in a situation where 2/3 of MP's or Senators have already called out their thoughts in unity on the matter.
That is why I ask consideration and input on this idea from fellow Senators for a possible Amendement B in which this would be changed.

Brototh wrote:We aren't voting yet but thanks for the enthusiasm

Reee Andy
I'll look at it tomorrow, 1:18am here.

Andusre I have 2 quick questions for you. In Amendment A, it changes the adequate consensus from a majority to 2/3rds majority to end the debate stage before the 12 hours is up. Does this also include the voting period or just the debate period?

The second question is where will Article III of the bill go? Will it be included in both of L.R. 006 and L.R. 024 or will it be a separate law?

Andusre has answered the questions on discord so if the Senators want to know the answers, here they are:

Answer to question 1: "Yes, it includes the voting period and the debate period."

Answer to question 2: "The new definition should be added to both bills, the "reminder" part should be discarded."

I will also be starting something new now so we can avoid any more possible scenarios like the one earlier today from happening again. Once I start the debate period of a bill, I will announce a time when I look to start the votes on the final passage or on any proposed amendments if there are any. I believe that this can keep the Senate organized so all amendments can be proposed before a planned vote time. I can of course postpone the vote time if the debate is ongoing but I would let you know if that happens. Also if you want to propose an amendment near the planned vote time, please let me know so I can postpone the voting period and allow for a short debate addition on the amendment. If you have any questions for this new addition, feel free to ask me.

I am announcing that the vote on the proposed amendments(s) will begin no earlier than tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon. (all times will be EST)

Senate chair marvinville

Voting - Amendment A

The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act
Authors: Andusre & Islonia
Sponsors: Andusre & Islonia

Amendment A
Author: Andusre

The definition of "adequate consensus" will be changed to read as follows:
Adequate consensus is defined as a group of MPs, constituting two thirds of the chamber, who all voice their support or opposition to the current business of the chamber.

Examples:

When debating a constitutional amendment, adequate consensus would be defined as two thirds in support of the amendment (required for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress) OR one third in opposition to the amendment (as this is enough to cause a constitutional amendment to fail)

When debating a regular bill, adequate consensus would be defined as a two thirds' majority in favour OR in opposition to the bill.

We have now begun voting on Amendment A to The Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

My vote is Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

(My bad for the debate. I got occupied with the festival's organisation and TEP stuff, completely forgot to check the Senate. 😞)

Aye

aye

Results from the Voting on Amendment A

Aye (6): Marvinville, World Trade, Dendrobium, Islonia, Andusre, Brototh

The amendment has passed unanimously.

Opening of Voting on the Loosening of Congressional Procedures Act

With permission from Marvinville, I now start the vote on the bill, as amended with Amendment A.

My vote is Aye.

(I won't do a senator ping spoiler cause y'all are already mentioned).

Finally, a massive thank you to Snowflame. I hope everything is alright with your IRL circumstances and thank you for your dedicated commitment to the Senate since election. o7

Pap sculgief, Snowflame, Indian genius, Zon island, and 1 otherMarvinville

Aye

«12. . .107108109110111112113. . .313314»

Advertisement