Repeal and Replacement Resolutions!

Status
Not open for further replies.
unibot

unibot

TNPer
Greetings The North Pacific!

The admins are proposing a new proposal category allowing for the General Assembly to vote for a “replacement”, which will repeal an old resolution and ‘replace’ it with a new resolution that obviously attempts to address the same issue that the old resolution addressed but in a different manner.

There is a lot of discussion on the effect that this change will have on the General Assembly voting. For example, if you don’t like a resolution at all, would you be inclined to vote for a replacement because it’s up to vote, even if it still replaces something you detest with something that you still politically detest? Or likewise, if you want to see something replaced and a classic repeal is up to vote, would you be inclined to vote against so that you can vote for a “replace” resolution instead?

So I want to run through six scenarios and see how you'd vote (in general), so that we can get a handle on how this will effect voting:

  1. Scenario: “Replace WA Environmental Council” comes to vote; this will repeal “WA Environmental Council” (a proposal that established the WA’s environmental research department) on technical grounds (problems with the text, not its purpose) and in turn it’ll replace the resolution with a new bill, “Environmental Research Programme” – a proposal that also establishes the WA’s environmental research department but addresses the technical concerns of the repeal. Both bills are written with fair quality and attention to grammar and format.

    Options: Vote For or Vote Against (because you want a classic repeal) or Vote Against (because you want the original to remain) or Abstain
  2. Scenario: “Repeal WA Environmental Council” comes to vote – this will just repeal “WA Environmental Council” on technical grounds. Obviously this occurs in a hypothetical world where “Replace WA Environmental Council” has not yet come to vote.

    Options: Vote For or Vote Against (because you want a replacement proposal) or Vote Against (because you want the original to remain) or Abstain
  3. Scenario: “Replace Stem Cells for Greater Health” comes to vote; this is to repeal “Stem Cells for Greater Health” (a proposal that legalized Stem Cell research and usage and promotes the trade of said technology) on the grounds that Stem Cells technology could be antiquated by better medical procedures in the world. This resolution also replaces “Stem Cells for Greater Health” with a new bill, “WA Bioethics Accord”, which legalizes the research and usage and promotes the trade of a variety of medical technologies regarded as ethical and safe. Both resolutions are written with attention to grammar and format.

    Options: Vote For or Vote Against (because you want a classic repeal) or Vote Against (because you want the original to remain) or Abstain
  4. Scenario: “Repeal Stem Cells for Greater Health” comes to vote – this will just repeal “Stem Cells for Greater Health” on technical grounds. Obviously this occurs in a hypothetical world where “Replace Stem Cells for Greater Health” has not yet come to vote.

    Options: Vote For or Vote Against (because you want a replacement proposal) or Vote Against (because you want the original to remain) or Abstain
  5. Scenario: “Replace Space Research Station Program” comes to vote; this is to repeal “Space Research Station Program”, a proposal that established a space station under the control of the WA – this proposal was written poorly with little attention to grammar and format. The replacement will replace the former resolution with “WA Space Station Act”, which establishes a space station programme under the World Assembly’s control but the proposal is written with much more attention to grammar and format.

    Options: Vote for or Vote Against (because you want a classic repeal) or Vote Against (because you want the original to remain) or Abstain
  6. Scenario: “Repeal Space Research Station Program” comes to vote – this will just repeal “Space Research Station Program” because it was poorly written and the idea of a space station is infeasible for the. Obviously this occurs in a hypothetical world where “Replace Space Research Station Program” has not yet come to vote.

    Options: Vote For or Vote Against (because you want a replacement proposal) or Vote Against (because you want the original to remain) or Abstain

Please post your responses in the following format,

Vote For = A
Vote Against (because you want a replacement proposal) = B
Vote Against (because you want the original to remain) = C
Abstain = D
Click to expand...

Example Post:
1)C
2)C
3)A
4)B
5)B
6)A
Click to expand...
 
I have advocated for years in regional discussions on specific proposals that this sort of process could be done within the coding framework of the effects of adopting and repealing resolutions. (I've called them amendments rather than replacements; but I'm not going to quibble over it.)
I'm not going to generalize how I might vote under the scenarios Unibot posted because it often depends on the originally adopted resolution, on the nature of the replacement, and on the grounds for a repeal.
I'm all in favor of this if this procedure is adopted.
The introduction of this would have a major impact on advocates of repeal -- if they're going to promise a replacement as an argument to repeal, this would put them to an immediate test of their sincerity. Which has been a major issue with me about all of the repeals for a long, long time.
 
Actually, I'd like you to generalize, if there is something specifically wrong with a replacement in practice for example, that's the author's fault. I'm just looking for how political positions affect R&R voter behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top