Ban on Speaker Lobbying

This sounds fairly good, however if he wants to campaign could he pass the duty of voting to a Deputy Speaker for the vote in question?
 
HEM:
This sounds fairly good, however if he wants to campaign could he pass the duty of voting to a Deputy Speaker for the vote in question?
Click to expand...
I guess. Is this a problem? I mean if the Speaker isn't going to counting the votes, will s/he still need to appear impartial?
 
I just disagree with the whole concept so I do not feel the need to provide an alternative.

I do not believe the Speaker should have his or her rights truncated by virtue of being the one to open and close the polls. The Speaker is still a member of the Regional Assembly and has the same right as every other member to push for or against legislation on the floor.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I just disagree with the whole concept so I do not feel the need to provide an alternative.

I do not believe the Speaker should have his or her rights truncated by virtue of being the one to open and close the polls. The Speaker is still a member of the Regional Assembly and has the same right as every other member to push for or against legislation on the floor.
Click to expand...
As much fun as I had doing it, I am but a representative of the Assembly and this should be a matter for the Assembly to decide.
 
Maybe something like...

RA procedure
1) After an RA member has cast a vote, the speaker of the RA thereafter may not contact said member requesting that the vote be changed.
 
Sydia:
Maybe something like...

RA procedure
1) After an RA member has cast a vote, the speaker of the RA thereafter may not contact said member requesting that the vote be changed.
Click to expand...
Syd, if you back to the thread that you started, I never "requested" anyone change their vote. They always began the same: "About your vote..." "May I ask why you voted Aye/Nay/Abstain." You went through the same schtick and I suggest you read over the PM's I sent and see if I did otherwise. What you're saying does nothing to stop what I have already been doing, which is find out the sticking points and debate them privately.
 
mr_sniffles:
Sydia:
Maybe something like...

RA procedure
1) After an RA member has cast a vote, the speaker of the RA thereafter may not contact said member requesting that the vote be changed.
Click to expand...
Syd, if you back to the thread that you started, I never "requested" anyone change their vote. They always began the same: "About your vote..." "May I ask why you voted Aye/Nay/Abstain." You went through the same schtick and I suggest you read over the PM's I sent and see if I did otherwise. What you're saying does nothing to stop what I have already been doing, which is find out the sticking points and debate them privately.
Click to expand...
That's just arguing semantics - I'd accept your argument if it was before the vote was cast. However, saying "about your vote..." after the event can easily be construed as "I don't like the way you voted there...", even if you didn't mean it that way.
 
mr_sniffles:
HEM:
This sounds fairly good, however if he wants to campaign could he pass the duty of voting to a Deputy Speaker for the vote in question?
Click to expand...
I guess. Is this a problem? I mean if the Speaker isn't going to counting the votes, will s/he still need to appear impartial?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think this is a good idea :D
 
mr_sniffles:
So for clarification, what can and cannot the Speaker say while a vote is in progress?
Click to expand...
I feel this must be reiterated since we are entering the realm of what may or may not be construed on what certain words may or may not mean. The purpose of laws and rules is to set forth clear boundaries, not leave vague wording. The last thing the North Pacific needs is a vicious "bear arms" debacle.

In the spirit of compromise, how about this:

RA Procedure
The Speaker must not interfere with ones choice of vote.
Click to expand...
 
Ya but what if the speaker abuses his position as speaker, people are more likely to listen to a speaker than a run of the mill ra member when deciding thier vote.
 
Well there is a big difference between asking why someone voted a certain way and abusing power. I think the Speaker has a right to ask why someone voted a certain way. I think the Speaker should even have the right to do personal debates to attempt to change someones opinion if they choose to. So long as they don't abuse their position and use it for forced coercion. If they abused their position like that then they like any government official should be removed. I don't see this being like that though.


Edited for spelling error. >_< :P
 
Kor:
Well there is a big difference between asking why someone voted a certain way and abusing power. I think the Speaker has a right to ask why someone voted a certain way. I think the Speaker should even have the right to do personal debates to attempt to change someones opinion if they choose to. So long as they don't abuse their position and use it for forced coercion. If they abused their position like that then they like any government official should be removed. I don't see this being liked that though.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
Disagree. An RA member, in my opinion, is likely to feel cornered or intimidated if asked by the Speaker about his vote, and might feel pressured to change it; even if he doesn't feel pressured to change it, he will feel that he must defend his choice. It puts an RA into a defensive stance -- I don't agree with that. The Speaker can discuss a person's vote with them AFTER the vote ends -- and it should apply to all members of the Regional Assembly. I see real life examples; in real life, people don't have 5 days to vote, a vote is instantaneous, so there is no such thing as the speaker asking people why they voted a certain way during a vote.
 
This isn't real life. In real life, there are pollsters who can ask people questions before a vote, and there are enough people that they can ask a statistically significant sample, or if we're talking about a legislative assembly the assembly members work on legislation full time and can ask each other assorted questions all the time. Indeed, IRL, the Speaker of the House is partisan and works on getting the members of the House voting the 'right' way on a bill.
 
In one region I am in, both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are considered impartial and serve only to moderate debate and manage the queues of bringing proposed bills to debate and then to vote. They are prohibited from voting unless to break a tie. The Speaker is allowed to express his views, to an extent, having to remain impartial nonetheless. :ADN:
 
Govindia:
In one region I am in, both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are considered impartial and serve only to moderate debate and manage the queues of bringing proposed bills to debate and then to vote. They are prohibited from voting unless to break a tie. The Speaker is allowed to express his views, to an extent, having to remain impartial nonetheless. :ADN:
Click to expand...

Is this region called the North Pacific by any chance?
 
Said region =/= TNP

You can't compare 2 different regions systems like that. Different people and different styles of governance.
 
mr_sniffles:
mr_sniffles:
So for clarification, what can and cannot the Speaker say while a vote is in progress?
Click to expand...
I feel this must be reiterated since we are entering the realm of what may or may not be construed on what certain words may or may not mean. The purpose of laws and rules is to set forth clear boundaries, not leave vague wording. The last thing the North Pacific needs is a vicious "bear arms" debacle.

In the spirit of compromise, how about this:

RA Procedure
The Speaker must not interfere with ones choice of vote.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me, avoids possible conflicts of interest, although I would add "...after the vote has been cast" to avoid too much constraint on the speaker.
 
Just following Sydia's idea, it was his original objection that spawned this entire discussion. As to the worthiness of it, put it to a vote and those against will do their thing and those for it will do theres and ta da! Democracy in action.
 
Ator People:
Grosseschnauzer:
Personally, I'd prefer the version without the additional clause, if it is really necessary to enact common sense as a procedural rule.
Click to expand...
I agree. A vote does not really exist if it has not been cast.
Click to expand...
Disagree; yes it does. Another interpretation of the prior worded clause can be read so that the speaker has no influence on a vote at all; cast or uncast. The new clause is more specific, after a vote's cast, the speaker can't question the voter about it.
 
Doesn't technically need to be in there, but given our history overclarification is better than underclarification, I feel.
 
Sydia:
Doesn't technically need to be in there, but given our history overclarification is better than underclarification, I feel.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if you also look at TNP history you see that it also over legislates and that has in the past caused the Constitution and legal code to be a bloated mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top