On current RA practice...

[Sydia]

Not sure if this is the right place, please move if not.

Two points: Firstly, I think voting to abstain has in the past and should count in tallying a total. In other words, I believe the current practice of discounting the abstaining vote is wrong.
E.g., vote on a motion gains, for sake of argument, 2 votes AYE, 2 votes NAY, and 1 ABSTAIN. Currently, as seen in the most recent vote on the security council, the speaker tallied the results as such:
AYE: 50%
NAY: 50%
ABSTAIN: 1 vote.
Instead, I believe AYE should have 40%, NAY 40% and ABSTAIN 20%. Most (if not every) legislative body in the world uses the latter of these two examples.
I point RA members towards the wikipedia article on abstaining, particularly the parts in bold:

Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum, which in turn means that those who abstain still effect the general number of people in quorum.

Otherwise what's the point of turning up and voting to abstain? You might as well not bother at all.

Secondly, I object to the practice of the speaker in PMing objecting RA members requesting a change of vote - Each RA member should be entitled to his/her opinion without being requested to change it.

That's all.

Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[HEM]

I agree with both points, primarily the first.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum, which in turn means that those who abstain still effect the general number of people in quorum.

When a legislative system was originally established in the NPC era, and during my tenure as head of that system as Minister of Justice, absentions were treated that way. It was the original precedent for the Regional Assembly when it was first established.

As some point after my first tenure on the Court, the Court apparently issued a decision that absentions had to be counted in the RA and in elections. When I learned of it, I disagreed with it, but unless the Court recerses that precedent, or until the RA enacts a different rule, that precedent still applies.

The Wiki statement conforms with the practice according to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, and dates bavk to its original edition back in the 1880s. And that is based on the practice of the United States House of Representatives that is documented in a manual ofprocedure that was written by Thomas Jefferson...which takes us back two hundred years or so.

While I wasn't contacted by Mr. Sniffles, I was contacted by someone else. I think it's OK for the Delegate or a Cabinet Minister to send such messages; but I do agree that the Speaker shouldn't be soliciting votes during the vote for one side or the other of a proposition. (A general reminder that something is at vote is fine.)

I would also add two other concerns.

First, I believe the elimination of the formal discussion phase and relying only on preliminary discussion to raise questions or suggestions on the language of legislation has led to the rejection of legislation at a much higher rate than in the past. We've seen too many proposals go to a vote before they were ready, and where the defects were grounds for RA members to vote against the proposals. I think we need to return to that prior practice.

Finally, there is nothting in our law or parliamentary custom that prevents the chair from voting when it would affect the result of a vote. That's the practice I followed when I served as Speaker, and there's nothing preventing the current Speaker from doing so.

 

[Namyeknom]

Secondly, I object to the practice of the speaker in PMing objecting RA members requesting a change of vote - Each RA member should be entitled to his/her opinion without being requested to change it.

 

[Sydia]

Secondly, I object to the practice of the speaker in PMing objecting RA members requesting a change of vote - Each RA member should be entitled to his/her opinion without being requested to change it.

Gonna need something more than an emoticon as a counterargument here, Nam - the speaker's the one who tallies up the votes. It doesn't sit well if the speaker is also the one canvassing for votes one way or another. The time to do that (if the speaker should be doing that at all, but that's another debate) is during preliminary discussions, not the vote itself.

 

[Heft]

Otherwise what's the point of turning up and voting to abstain? You might as well not bother at all.

Secondly, I object to the practice of the speaker in PMing objecting RA members requesting a change of vote - Each RA member should be entitled to his/her opinion without being requested to change it.

I agree with these two points (though not sure the second has really been a problem at all).

But I suppose it should be counted in the official percentages if it's counted at all.

 

[Sydia]

Otherwise what's the point of turning up and voting to abstain? You might as well not bother at all.

Secondly, I object to the practice of the speaker in PMing objecting RA members requesting a change of vote - Each RA member should be entitled to his/her opinion without being requested to change it.

I agree with these two points (though not sure the second has really been a problem at all).

But I suppose it should be counted in the official percentages if it's counted at all.

I agreed with you until I saw the current Security Council vote. I've had PMs of this nature, but not given it too much thought before.

However, Khark's statement here intrigued me:

Nay, partially due to my opposition to any body based on influence, but mostly due to the PM harassment I've received for voting against every Security Council Amendment.

And it's fairly obvious that Falconias has been asked for a change of vote after the vote has been cast :

Abstain

EDIT December 23rd at 11:03 AM: After further consideration, I change my vote to AYE.

Also HEM:

EDIT, VOTE CHANGED.

I am changing my vote to Aye...

Has been contacted in this manner. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

Normally legislative speakers don't even vote, outside of special circumstances, and in the UK the speaker is expected to be completely non-partisan. Canvassing should be done before the vote, not after. I'm sure the intentions are pure, however no democracy in the world has ever had someone ask a voter "Are you sure about that?" after casting their vote.

 

[Namyeknom]

Secondly, I object to the practice of the speaker in PMing objecting RA members requesting a change of vote - Each RA member should be entitled to his/her opinion without being requested to change it.

Gonna need something more than an emoticon as a counterargument here, Nam - the speaker's the one who tallies up the votes. It doesn't sit well if the speaker is also the one canvassing for votes one way or another. The time to do that (if the speaker should be doing that at all, but that's another debate) is during preliminary discussions, not the vote itself.

Sorry, I was eyebrowing the speaker canvassing votes, not your objection to it.

Personally I would object to anyone PMing people to change their votes, or indeed encouraging people to vote a certain way.

 

[Sydia]

Secondly, I object to the practice of the speaker in PMing objecting RA members requesting a change of vote - Each RA member should be entitled to his/her opinion without being requested to change it.

Gonna need something more than an emoticon as a counterargument here, Nam - the speaker's the one who tallies up the votes. It doesn't sit well if the speaker is also the one canvassing for votes one way or another. The time to do that (if the speaker should be doing that at all, but that's another debate) is during preliminary discussions, not the vote itself.

Sorry, I was eyebrowing the speaker canvassing votes, not your objection to it.

Personally I would object to anyone PMing people to change their votes, or indeed encouraging people to vote a certain way.

Oh, righty-o, my apologies.

 

[mr_sniffles]

I accept abstentions as a formal vote, I've counted them before and will continue to do so.

EDIT - I'm not trying to say my way or the highway but simply that for as long as I can remember, abstains have been counted. All the way back to WizardofOz. It is both part of the custom and conventions of the NP RA. If anything I invite you to make a proposal for altering procedure when the next Speaker is sworn in.

I lobby for votes, this is no secret. I don't demand or object, I simply see if we can discuss it. I did it when I wasn't Speaker and I'll continue to do it because it is within my democratic rights.

I just think it's sad when people allow their personal feelings come before doing what they think is good for the region. You expect it elsewhere just not here is all.

 

[Heft]

As the leader of this assembly it's your responsibility to maintain some semblance of objectivity, which generally includes not lobbying people to change their votes after they've already been cast. Your democratic rights don't have anything to do with it, your responsbilities as Speaker do.

 

[mr_sniffles]

As the leader of this assembly it's your responsibility to maintain some semblance of objectivity, which generally includes not lobbying people to change their votes after they've already been cast. Your democratic rights don't have anything to do with it, your responsbilities as Speaker do.

Anyone who can find examples of my inobjectivity in counting the votes is more than welcome to show them. For there are none.

As for some semblance of objectivity, I count myself a million times more objective than Nancy Pelosi or Peter Milliken.

If there is to be a law that limits private discussions between Assemblymembers then let there be. But as of now, there is no law nor precedent in real life and in NS.

I find nothing wrong with debating the merits of every proposal to their fullest extent. Sometimes people get confused, sometimes people think there is no room for compromise. People don't change their votes because I threaten to kidnap their dogs, they change their votes because they can persuaded, because compromise can always be found.

Criticism is welcome and a vital aspect of all democracies but so is debate. If the North Pacific is a region where everyone votes without vigorous debate, without compromise then I think I'm in the wrong region.

 

[Sydia]

I accept abstentions as a formal vote, I've counted them before and will continue to do so.

I lobby for votes, this is no secret. I don't demand or object, I simply see if we can discuss it. I did it when I wasn't Speaker and I'll continue to do it because it is within my democratic rights.

I just think it's sad when people allow their personal feelings come before doing what they think is good for the region. You expect it elsewhere just not here is all.

I personally have no objections to the speaker lobbying for support of proposed legislation, provided it is before said legislation has been put to vote. Once that's happened, however, I think it's a conflict of interests for the speaker to continue lobbying.

For the record: I have no issue with sniffles, and in fact think he's done a commendable job as speaker. What I do seek, however, is a discussion on some of the practices of the office of speaker I believe need to be resolved in a debate such as this.

I speak only for myself, but hopefully the whole region; any and all votes I make are based on the merits of the proposed legislation and not the person proposing the legislation.

 

[mr_sniffles]

There's no set way of throwing proposals up to a vote, some wait for the authour to give their consent, some wait for a motion to be presented. I use a combination of both as some authours usually duck under the covers when serious criticisms occur.

Just as how Sydia felt during the Electoral Reform debate, when people feel excluded from the process they just vote Nay. What part of my lobbying does is get people to get their two-cents in and see if compromise can be found. 99% of time, there can be.

The office of the Speaker is a million times more than just counting votes, it's about facilitating proposals into law. Not being allowed to vote however has been tough so maybe I do overcompensate through lobbying. If this seems partisan, know that I have done it not to play sides, simply to fight for the laws I feel are right. Just as I've always done.

If I have overstepped my bounds. I apologize and I hope the next Speaker takes the same advice.

 

[Sydia]

There's no set way of throwing proposals up to a vote, some wait for the authour to give their consent, some wait for a motion to be presented. I use a combination of both as some authours usually duck under the covers when serious criticisms occur.

Just as how Sydia felt during the Electoral Reform debate, when people feel excluded from the process they just vote Nay. What part of my lobbying does is get people to get their two-cents in and see if compromise can be found. 99% of time, there can be.

Exactly, but this brings me back to my original point (and concerns about the electoral reform proposal - namely that it wasn't given a proper debate) - the time for this should surely be in the preliminary discussions and not after a vote has been called (and cast)?

The office of the Speaker is a million times more than just counting votes, it's about facilitating proposals into law. Not being allowed to vote however has been tough so maybe I do overcompensate through lobbying. If this seems partisan, know that I have done it not to play sides, simply to fight for the laws I feel are right. Just as I've always done.

I'd add an important caveat here - it's about facilitating worthwhile proposals into law, not every single one that's put forward (and then abandoned by it's author!). Again, this goes back to the original point - proper debate on them weeds out the poor ideas and strengthens good ones.

If I have overstepped my bounds. I apologize and I hope the next Speaker takes the same advice.

I don't think anyone here blames you, I've not seen the exact and appropriate role of the speaker addressed before now.

 

[mr_sniffles]

I greatly appreciate everything you've said but in my entire career within the North Pacific, I've never heard of anyone saying there needs to be more time for debate. What I've heard mostly is that the whole process takes too long.

 

[Sydia]

I greatly appreciate everything you've said but in my entire career within the North Pacific, I've never heard of anyone saying there needs to be more time for debate. What I've heard mostly is that the whole process takes too long.

Maybe so, but recently the opposite seems to be true; too quick. I'd rather have a carefully debated piece of legislature than one that's been rushed through in the name of efficiency.

 

[Rhindon Blade]

Nay, partially due to my opposition to any body based on influence, but mostly due to the PM harassment I've received for voting against every Security Council Amendment.

I was rather disturbed by this also. Though I acknowledge that our current Speaker has performed his duties remarkably well, I do agree with Sydia that such a practice - after votes have been cast - is in no way becoming of the Speaker. I'm very glad that it seems Mr. Sniffles recognizes this, though.

I am completely in agreement with Sydia on the point that abstentions should be counted in the tally. Makes for a much more accurate reflection on the opinions of the RA members, and unless anyone can come up with a good reason why this function is currently not employed (there very well might be, unless this was a pretty darn overlooked matter) - then I will support any movement to correct the issue.

 

[HEM]

I think this about as grey of an area you can get.

My opinion is the same as many others, as Speaker you head the RA. Meaning that within the RA you lead other Assemblypeople.

BUT I disagree in another area, this is Nationstates, and as we learn time and time again, Nationstates is not real life. Many of you are trying to compare this incident with real life speakers and legislative bodies. That doesn't work.

I think that as this legislation is Mr. Sniffles, when he is canvassing for votes he is acting as the proposer of the legislation not Speaker of the RA

In real life, the likelyhood of you holding two roles is very sparse (Unless you are a MP and in Cabient etc), Hence you never really have to wear "more then one hat"

In Nationstates, regions often require you to do so. In real life if Nancy Pelosi wanted something to be proposed, it would be VERY different then Sniffles proposing something here.

So, in conclusion. If the legislation is written by the Speaker, I think it is okay for him to canvass for support during any times of the debate/voting aslong as he does not try to use his influence as Speaker to make it pass, and canvasses only with his "bill sponsor hat" on.

 

[Sydia]

Nay, partially due to my opposition to any body based on influence, but mostly due to the PM harassment I've received for voting against every Security Council Amendment.

I was rather disturbed by this also. Though I acknowledge that our current Speaker has performed his duties remarkably well, I do agree with Sydia that such a practice - after votes have been cast - is in no way becoming of the Speaker. I'm very glad that it seems Mr. Sniffles recognizes this, though.

I am completely in agreement with Sydia on the point that abstentions should be counted in the tally. Makes for a much more accurate reflection on the opinions of the RA members, and unless anyone can come up with a good reason why this function is currently not employed (there very well might be, unless this was a pretty darn overlooked matter) - then I will support any movement to correct the issue.

I noticed the point about abstaining in the last post of the security council vote, but it's since been edited out and replaced, hopefully making this a non-issue in the future.

@ HEM: How exactly would you suggest a speaker kept their legislature proposer/speaker role separate? Seems like this is a hard one to resolve outside of barring said speaker from canvassing after a vote is called.

 

[HEM]

If Sniffles, is campaigning as just a RA member, just trying to garner support I think that is okay.

Now, asking accusatory questions or trying to yield Speaker authority is not.

For example:

Hello, My name is [whatever] I hope you support [whatever Act]

-[whomever]

Would be, in my opinion an appropriate message. However,

Hello, I am Speaker [Whomever] I hope you support the bill currently on the floor of the RA. If you don't support it, please tell me why.

Your Speaker,

Speaker of the RA, [whomever]

Would not be acceptable, because you are trying to wield you influence as Speaker on getting it passed.

 

[Outer Kharkistania]

I agree with everything Sydia has to say, especially the counting Abstain parts.

Also, for all you people who are reading too much into what I said, I would have voted against it anyways, the PM canvassing just made me REALLY want to vote against it, and I only mentioned it to register my displeasure with the practice.

I suppose it would have been more productive to write out a dissertation like Sydia has done, but I frankly did not have the time at that point, and I really didn't give it a second thought afterward.

 

[mr_sniffles]

I agree with everything Sydia has to say, especially the counting Abstain parts.

Also, for all you people who are reading too much into what I said, I would have voted against it anyways, the PM canvassing just made me REALLY want to vote against it, and I only mentioned it to register my displeasure with the practice.

I suppose it would have been more productive to write out a dissertation like Sydia has done, but I frankly did not have the time at that point, and I really didn't give it a second thought afterward.

I'm sorry Khark but you've made your opinions clear on the SC matter well before I even called this vote. As such, I never once "canvassed you." The only PM's sent were to notify you of the vote. Which if was so, you could easily have eliminated in the Do Not Disturb thread.

And for a point of clarification, I never requested people change their votes nor did I ever use my office to threaten people. Which lets face it, judging by current reaction never would've have worked. I simply asked "May I ask why you voted Nay/Abstain?" And I dare anyone to show proof I ever requested otherwise.

If you don't like it, don't respond. Was it appropriate? I apologize for those who think it wasn't and I do apologize for incoveniencing people. Maybe more debate is needed, maybe Sydia should introduce a procedural motion to ban vote changing after the vote is up, maybe the Do Not Disturb thread needs to be bolded. I am truly sorry if people think my campaigning corrupted the viewed impartiality of the office.

As I leave office, I just want to say to everyone that throwing stones is fun. I know from experience but if you don't like the house we're living in, stop throwing stones and make a better house. There are so many avenues open to people from bills, amendments, to simple procedural motions. That's all.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Lastly, I've never expected anyone to agree with everything I do but I do hope they understand it. I haven't taken any of it personally, two posters so far I know are not partisan and I respect a lot. Two I like to call, "pile-ons," they rarely speak on RA matters only to pile-on when someone is down. The rest I'm sad to say I never got to know.

 

[Chowda Head]

In all of my votes, I've only ever received on PM from Sniffles asking why I voted how I did. As it turns out, it was a revised edition of an earlier proposal that I said I would support if a section was removed. In essence, his PM covered my rear. All in all I think he's done a bang up job as speaker and I have seen no evidence of him using his position as speaker to bully votes his way.

All in all I think the RA does things pretty well. Could we be more efficient? Probably. But we have the power to change that. So, enough with the finger pointing and asshattery. Let's get to work!!!

Also, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everybody out there.

 

[Rhindon Blade]

So, enough with the finger pointing and asshattery.

No one's treating the matter like that...so far Sydia has been very cordial in regards to the situation - which is all that is needed. I'd just like to add that I have never received any such PMs from our Speaker either, but since he hasn't denied it, I certainly don't doubt the validity of Sydia's concern.

He's genuinely extended his apologies, whether the matter was of concern or not, which shows a good measure of maturity - and that should be enough for anyone. Mr. Sniffles, as far as I've seen, has performed his duties very diligently - and likewise deserves an applaud for the other good works he has done during his term!

Two I like to call, "pile-ons," they rarely speak on RA matters only to pile-on when someone is down. The rest I'm sad to say I never got to know

Argh...I do dislike allusions!

 

[HEM]

Sniffles, you did send me a PM directly asking me to change my vote.

 

[Outer Kharkistania]

While I have deleted your PM when I cleared out my inbox Sniffles, you did sent me something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing) "Jeez give it a rest, if you don't want a Security Council, write legislation explicitly banning it or stop complaining."

 

[mr_sniffles]

While I have deleted your PM when I cleared out my inbox Sniffles, you did sent me something along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing) "Jeez give it a rest, if you don't want a Security Council, write legislation explicitly banning it or stop complaining."

Did that explicitly in any way ask you to change your vote? No that only goes back to what I was saying earlier that if you don't like it, make a law to stop it.

Sniffles, you did send me a PM directly asking me to change my vote.

Post it. I remember it specifically after discussing the matter at length on what it would take for you to alter your vote. Well after I asked: "May I ask why voted Nay on yadda yadda."

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I think there's a way out of this, and all it takes is a procedural motion of the RA to overrule the chair (which I believe would be a simple majority.)
I offer the following motion:

I hereby move that the decision of the chair to include stated absentions on the most recent proposal to amend the Constitution be ovrruled, and that in the future, absentions shall not be included in determining any matter voted upon by the Regional Assembly other than to determine the participation of a quorum.

 

[mr_sniffles]

I think there's a way out of this, and all it takes is a procedural motion of the RA to overrule the chair (which I believe would be a simple majority.)
I offer the following motion:

I hereby move that the decision of the chair to include stated absentions on the most recent proposal to amend the Constitution be ovrruled, and that in the future, absentions shall not be included in determining any matter voted upon by the Regional Assembly other than to determine the participation of a quorum.

Make a thread and the next Speaker will take it up, it'll also move away off-topic debate. However Sydia said that Abstentions SHOULD be counted, as they have been, and always have.

 

[Eluvatar]

Wait... WHAT!??

This makes no sense. This is not how Abstentions were counted in RA votes before. I remember very clearly the vote on the amendment to ban Lexiconians, er, I mean to change the way admission into the RA worked.

Click Me.

 

[HEM]

Hi, sorry to keep bothering you about this but currently the SC vote is failing to reach the 75% majority by two votes. Now if I'm guessing correctly, because of the Vice Del's powers being too strong you are voting nay but on the whole you believe the creation of the Security Council is sound. Now if I promise to draft an amendment to correct the Vice Del's powers, would you change your vote?

It just seems overkill to sink the entire idea over a minor discomfort.

Sniffles

Part in question is bolded

 

[Falconias]

For the record, my reasons for changing my vote were fairly legitimate, as an abstain vote was perhaps somewhat misguided.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Hi, sorry to keep bothering you about this but currently the SC vote is failing to reach the 75% majority by two votes. Now if I'm guessing correctly, because of the Vice Del's powers being too strong you are voting nay but on the whole you believe the creation of the Security Council is sound. Now if I promise to draft an amendment to correct the Vice Del's powers, would you change your vote?

It just seems overkill to sink the entire idea over a minor discomfort.

Sniffles

Part in question is bolded

This was what my third reply, fourth message? My point is that I wished to see what it would take for you to change your vote. If the changes you advocated were introduced, would you change your vote?

I'm sorry do you think I was saying that since my birth I had never uttered those words? Because if you read again... I'll bold for you:

And for a point of clarification, I never requested people change their votes nor did I ever use my office to threaten people. Which lets face it, judging by current reaction never would've have worked. I simply asked "May I ask why you voted Nay/Abstain?" And I dare anyone to show proof I ever requested otherwise.

And our conversation was clearly a hypothetical:

Now if I promise to draft an amendment to correct the Vice Del's powers, would you change your vote?

Now to maintain the topic of the thread, did you feel I was badgering or blackmailing or demanding you to change your vote? Because if you felt I was holding your head under water, I'll own up to it right now.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Wait... WHAT!??

This makes no sense. This is not how Abstentions were counted in RA votes before. I remember very clearly the vote on the amendment to ban Lexiconians, er, I mean to change the way admission into the RA worked.

Click Me.

See here, posted earlier by Grosse:

As some point after my first tenure on the Court, the Court apparently issued a decision that absentions had to be counted in the RA and in elections. When I learned of it, I disagreed with it, but unless the Court recerses that precedent, or until the RA enacts a different rule, that precedent still applies.

 

[HEM]

Sniffles...I have been sticking up for you the majority of this thread, not to say I am "on your side" but I maintain your right to canvass members.

What I was simply protesting was you saying you never asked anyone directly to change their vote.

 

[mr_sniffles]

Sniffles...I have been sticking up for you the majority of this thread, not to say I am "on your side" but I maintain your right to canvass members.

What I was simply protesting was you saying you never asked anyone directly to change their vote.

I know that but I'm just really wondering if I did force you to change your vote, by demanding it. I'm sorry if I did, but I'm really wondering if I did.

 

[HEM]

Erm...You got me to see your point. Your promise of a change convinced me...that was really my only qualm was the Vice Delegate just being able to "remove" members without specifics.

Erm...forced? Not really...I didn't feel threatened, although the constant badgering from a few members (Not just you) did get annoying.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

As I also noted in my earliest post in this thread, we used to follow the rule as Sydia quoted fromWikipedia, and then it was changed. The link posted by Eluvatar is a vote taken when I was Prime Minister, and Mr. Sniffles had taken a leave of absence as Speaker in the middle of a vote.

I believe we need to return to the Wikipedia rule, and my motion to overrule the chair is a time-honored procedural device used to establish or change a precedent of procedure in a legislative system. The motion passes on a simple majority vote.

I believe that it could, and should, go to a vote now since it seek to overrule the Speaker's decision on the vote on the Security Council amendment, but it will serve as notice that I have asked the members of the Assembly to settle that issue, and apply that solution to the Security Council amendment ptoposal.