About the Security Council Vote...

Now there have been certain controversies arriving from my decision to hold both proposals to the same vote, controversy which surely would have increased if I had both proposals in separate votes and we had a tie or both failed. Once again we had two proposals on the Security Council that were different in language and in spirit, we simply could not risk having both pass and face yet another round of Constitutional confusion and bickering.

Now the thing about Monday morning quarterbacking is that it only sounds great on Monday morning. When faced with tough decisions, I could have simply recused myself, slowly but surely grind the entire government to a halt like a certain former Chief Justice but I wouldn`t have the guts to show my face around here anymore.

And to anyone who thinks I've torpedoed this amendment by my own stubborness, I invite them to check the inbox over the past week of all the voters who didn't vote for either amendments or didn't vote at all. I have not only been the biggest lobby, I've been the only lobby this week when most if not all of you were on holiday or slogging through your exams. (And it's not like I haven't been busy slogging or planning a holiday.)

At the end of the day, it was a tough call. I gave both proposers weeks to settle it out but (yes... Sydia) only one amendment could pass. If people still think I sabatoged the chances for this amendment, perhaps you should've been hounding the nay and absent voters there with me. I'm not happy with the result of this vote but I accept it because I did everything I could to alter it. And that's all I have to say for about this matter right now.

I believe you misunderstand my concern.

I am not concerned that you held a vote between the two proposals. I am concerned that said vote constituted the official poll determining whether either of the proposals would be accepted or denied as an amendment to the Constitution.

It was my interpretation of your original post and the overall manner of the vote that it was merely a means of determining which of the proposals would then go to a formal amendment vote.

I do not believe the vote should be discounted or retracted but I believe a second vote solely on the "winning" proposal as an either Aye or Nay amendment vote should take place.

All that matters is neither passed, and the region is better off for it.

I lost track of the date. But it seems that the most effective solution would have involved two votes, one way or another, and it has seemed that way all along. The result of diluting the vote and basically handicapping the "yes" side wasn't exactly difficult to foresee.

Outer Kharkistania:

All that matters is neither passed, and the region is better off for it.

Click to expand...

What hole did you decide to crawl out of today?

This discussion isn't about whether either amendment passed, it is about the process.

Gracius Maximus:

Outer Kharkistania:

All that matters is neither passed, and the region is better off for it.

Click to expand...

What hole did you decide to crawl out of today?

This discussion isn't about whether either amendment passed, it is about the process.

Click to expand...

About damn time there was some action! Someone throw a chair or light some fires for God's sake!

Yo momma so fat...

Outer Kharkistania:

All that matters is neither passed, and the region is better off for it.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I had already told sniffles why I did not vote on either proposal.

The required amount of people voted FOR a security council but were split on which. If we simply dropped off the lowest and had a run-off vote to see whether Eluvatar's proposal gets the required 75% and if not then we drop the issue altogether. That seems the most logical option at the moment so I'm sorry if I've missed it being raised elsewhere.

Mmm, seems that in the future, rather than having two proposals on the same matter being put to vote simultaneously, we should hammer out one proposal on said topic in preliminary discussions and then put that to vote.

Sydia:

Mmm, seems that in the future, rather than having two proposals on the same matter being put to vote simultaneously, we should hammer out one proposal on said topic in preliminary discussions and then put that to vote.

Click to expand...

I gave them both two weeks to hammer out a compromise neither budged.

We had an informal poll but it didn't make quorum.

And if after all this, you guys still think I made this decision arbitraily then so be it.

I think the informal poll showed it was fairly obvious Elu's proposal should reach the vote, which was reflected in the actual results.

Sydia:

I think the informal poll showed it was fairly obvious Elu's proposal should reach the vote, which was reflected in the actual results.

Click to expand...

8 people voted and if Grosse is going to call me a dictator for not taking his advice, what would he call me if I tabled his proposal. 8 votes is not quorum and should not decide the law for 3000 nations or at the very least 40 RA members.

If I allowed two votes to occur simultaneously then we`d risk another Constitutional headache if they both passed or tied. The Constitution states specifically that any amendment that reaches 3/4 majority becomes law, I don't have the power to choose which majority, nor should I.

There seems to be a consensus that we should hold a re-vote for Elu's proposal and after the current voting session ends, I'll put it back up.