Filibuster legislation

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
I would also like to propose legislation to allow filibusters. If or when five members of the regional assembly properly voice dissent to calling a resolution to vote, an additional one week should be allowed for more legislative discussion. Once again, anyone willing to aid me by writing such legislation would be greatly in my debt.
 
If people cannot get their ideas across in the period of unofficial discussion and then the official week of discussion then perhaps nobody much likes their ideas!!

I do not think our already slow process requires law to allow a small group to stall proceedings further!!
 
Yes... All someone would have to do would be to find four of his buddies, andwhatever bills they didn't like would never get passed, or even voted upon. The possibility for this to happen with each bill is too great to allow it to occur.
 
I received the majority of cast votes and under our system no official has a mandate as the RA decides what legislation is passed!! Seeing as we have no functional party system there is no real possibility of forming a "majority"!! If the majority of those that care enough to join the RA support a proposal then who are 5 people to decide they can hold the region to ransom?!
 
I think the idea of five vetted RA members holding the entire North Pacific hostage is baseless fearmongering. First, it would only be legislation not a constitutional change. Meaning it would allow the dismissal of the filibuster through a majority vote or court rulings. Second, the idea that any of our honourable Regional Assemblymen commited and loving of our great region would use it for pointless partisan means is an insult to me. Third, just because the North Pacific does not seem to have great partisan leanings does not mean that there is never a minority opinion.

However many of the other points do hold a lot of weight. Would a much higher quorum be acceptable? Something more like a 40% of all regional assembly members?
 
Under the constitution "abstain" does not count as a vote!! Hence the abstain campaign for that election was unsuccessful!!
 
The constitution allows for people to abstain, rather than make a choice that they would regret. They still choose to abstain. Meaning it was still not a vote for you, thus out of all the ballots cast; you were not the candidate that a majority supported.
 
If that were the case, I would not have won the election!! I won the election, hence I received the majority of cast votes as per the laws of the region!!
 
You won by winning the most votes not a majority of the votes. A majority of the votes is 50%+1. It's called a plurality, a minority mandate, or a relative majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality

EDIT- I am not disputing your election win but the inaccuracies of your statements, especially your disdian for the word "minority".
 
mr_sniffles:
The constitution allows for people to abstain, rather than make a choice that they would regret. They still choose to abstain. Meaning it was still not a vote for you, thus out of all the ballots cast; you were not the candidate that a majority supported.
Click to expand...
"Abstain" means that you do not wish to cast a vote - "To refrain from something by one's own choice; To refrain from voting", according to dictionary.com - it in itself is not a vote, as it is neither for nor against either candidate.

Therefore, Polts would have recieved at least 58% of the votes cast.
 
The votes accepted under the constitution were the ones that count in the final tally and hence the ones that are cast!! Abstains are not votes!!
 
Wait... why should we cater to the minority? I see no reason to do this. Democracy is meant to cater to the majority in order to plase as many people as possible. Screw the minority.
 
Actually, both positions are sort of correct on the tangetical question of whether Poltsamaa was elected by a majority or a plurality of the voters in the last election.

The official certificate of election is posted here at s2 for Delegate and Vice Delegate:
http://s2.invisionfree.invalid/The_North_Pacif...?showtopic=5592
The official certificate of election is posted here at s3 for all other elected positions:
http://s2.invisionfree.invalid/The_North_Pacif...?showtopic=5584

According to the official tally as signed by Tresville verified by both Flemingovia and Baribeau:

Official Tally of Results of the Election of Prime Minister of The North Pacific
Total ballots cast: 39
Poltsamaa: 17 (elected)
Romanoffia: 11
Abstain: 11
Click to expand...

The official tally itself notes that 37 ballots were cast, and that Poltsamaa received only 17 of those 39m which is less than half. He did receive 17 of the 28 votes cast for a canidate, which is more than half.

So from a legal point of view, he received a majority of the votes cast, but from a political point of view, he received votes from less than half of all voters who voted in the election. The absentions in the Prime Minister's race amounted to just about 30 percent of the voters.

As long as the subject was brought up, it helps to look at the actual official statement rather than guesswor. That these numbers are the *official* number is not disputable. How to interpret them is a different matter. And as I noted, there is room for both sides of the argument to support their view.

And as to this:
Fedele:
Screw the minority.
Click to expand...

One of the basic purposes of the Declaration of Rights is to protect the rights of the individual (or a minority) from abuse from the hands of a majority, "Screw the minority?" Don't think so.
 
good point, but I guess the main thing is to allow minorities an extreme action to extreme cases.
Click to expand...

:blink: Wait...do you mean raider? Cause thats the only "minority" group I can think of...except for IP, he belongs to his own minority group :P
 
Fedele:
Wait... why should we cater to the minority? I see no reason to do this. Democracy is meant to cater to the majority in order to plase as many people as possible. Screw the minority.
Click to expand...
Democracy is about representing all people no matter the numbers. If only the majority view was represented; slavery would still be law, visible minorities wouldn't be able to vote, wouldn't be able to go into interracial marriages. Your view can even be taken into extremes like Apartheid.

A nation where 51% of the population rule over the rest of the 49% is not a democracy.
 
Ok, I see your point there... but this filibuster idea would allow that minority to completely halt the legislative process. Any proposal they don't like could be stopped from ever coming to vote. Eventually, the author will simply give up in frustration, and the region never progresses.

I'm almost certain that for every bill proposed to the UN, you could find at least five people who don't want to see it put into action.
 
Wow, filibusters.. I tend to agree that resolutions have a long time getting out anyway. There are also many other ways to stop a resolution one does not like. For example, even a small but dedicated minority could stop quorum from being achieved in a certain vote.

Five members seems to me a little capricious. In the US Senate, you need greater than 40% to sustain a filibuster. Five members of the RA out of the couple dozen that we have would simply mean that a very small minority can snag things endlessly.
 
Edit: BAH.. Can I petition someone to seriously move the EDIT button to the other side of the QUOTE button? This is the second time I've hit EDIT when I meant to QUOTE.

Apologies to Fedele, but I'll try to recap his post. After an excellent Lincoln reference, he pointed out that techncally in a democracy 51% of the populace does have its opinion become the majority view. Therefore, he holds that if a minority cannot convince a majority of its views through sound reasoning and logic, that minority should not be given the power to block legislation or action. This kind of thing would result in corruption.
 
I don't like filibusters. They allow loud minorities to block the legitimate democratic process. If protection of specific minorities is needed it should be placed in the constitution to avoid later law overriding it.
 
I think we should realize here that when 51% of the populace wants something, their opinion will be sustained on that particular issue. That does not mean that 51% "rule over" 49% as sniffles said in his post. After all, today's minority is very likely tomorrow's majority, and in a democracy, no one permanently "wins" because no one gets what they want all the time.

I would submit that a 99% majority cannot rule over 1%. Any time where there is "ruling" over, by a majority or minority, does not constitute democratic principles.
 
Fedele:
Edit: BAH.. Can I petition someone to seriously move the EDIT button to the other side of the QUOTE button? This is the second time I've hit EDIT when I meant to QUOTE.
Click to expand...
Nope... you'd have to bring it up with Invisionfree directly, and I think it would screw up too many other people. Just remember, QUOTE is always the one farthest to the right. ;)
 
Curses! Now I'll be afraid to quote for awhile.. Just kidding.

It comes down to this, in my point of view.. I would support some kind of filibuster provision IN PRINCIPLE if the requirements were strict enough. That is to say, we can't have 10% or 25% of people slowing things down.

However, that is assuming I'm convinced of the need for a filibuster in PRACTICE on these forums.. and I'm not yet convinced of that.

Debate is quite free on these boards. If there is a minority, say 40% of people, who do not like a certain bill, then these people with a little effort could very feasibly become the majority in a short time and act to override the provision. This is the only situation where a filibuster (in my mind) would work in theory -- where there is a very significant minority. In all other situations, I do not believe smaller minorities should have filibuster power. Therefore, the only situation where a filibuster would help (large minorities) is also a situation where the minority could easily become the majority, eliminating the need for filibuster provisions.
 
I've actually said before that I'm more than willing to let it go up to 40 even 45%. However, just like the recall bill the support seems to be half-hearted with the opposed bordering vehement. So I'm ready to call both dead bills.
 
Well, it might be worth taking a look at after the RV/RA merger thing gets sorted out (with regards to the quorum question and whether that will actually change or not).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top