Search results

Present

Against

Present

For

Against

For

I understand that as the intent of the proposal, hence why I labelled my comment as a nitpick with respect to drafting—it's not much more than a matter of personal style. To be clear, the criticism I presented is unrelated to my vote.

Present This is fine, but the drafting is a little odd, in that it could be misinterpreted as calling for immediate decommissioning of all nuclear plants immediately—surely "decommissioning under/as required by article A." would make more sense in most contexts than "Article a decommissioning"...

For

Present Sometimes reasonable but generally unconvincing imo

Against This repeal seems to understand the term "union" to mean "amalgamation" or "absorption", which is rather strange; I don't see how the target could possibly suggest this interpretation. Objection to the coupon system is again formulated on a misunderstanding of how such a system works...

Against Extraordinarily overbearing, and inappropriate for the WA. I'm not personally particularly fussed over grammar/spelling issues, as much as this may be evidence of a lack of care to some, since a fair chunk of the existing WA corpus would fall afoul of any stringent grammatical...

Against

For

For

For

For I think one could reasonably argue that "clinical trial" is a sufficiently well-known term to permit the foregoing of an explicit definition, but I think it's fair to say that the requirement to use placebo in all cases is improper, and probably shouldn't be in WA primary legislation in the...

For

Present Int

Against 1. Does not require repeal—as an extension of the original, this can be applied by a separate resolution without violating the house of cards rule: "Rations Suitability Act: That any WA organ, including though not limited to ..., which distributes rations, including though not limited...

Against As above

Against

For

Against

Against

Against

For

Present

Against

Against