Rule 6: Motions to Table

Kingborough

Kingborough

TNPer
We seem to be having a need for a lot to motions to table this month, so I thought we better enshrine it in procedure.

Regional Assembly Rule 6:
Motions to Table
1. A motion to table a vote may be requested by any member of the Regional Assembly.
2. A motion to table shall be a "motion to postpone indefinitely any further consideration of a matter".
2. Should the motion to table receive a second and a third the motion to vote shall be suspended if the Speaker deems it due.
3. If the Speaker has a conflict of interest in the matter then his/her designated deputy shall judge if the motion to table is valid.
Click to expand...
 
There was a rule 5 already, I think it's best the new rule 5 be numbered as rule 6. Is this what we normally do?
 
There's already a rule 5; and since there seems to be some usage confusion between the British and American use of the word "table", perhaps some explanation in the text of the rule for our British cousins would be in order? (A motion to table is a motion to postpone indefinitely any further consideration of the matter.)
And I will note that there was a successful motion of this character prior to the last general election, so there is precedent for it.
 
This gives too much power to a tiny minority and the Speaker to halt a vote. Why should four people be able to block a vote that the rest of the Regional Assembly supports? It would be better if after a motion to table receives a second and a third the motion is voted on by the entire Regional Assembly. Alternatively, we could not have motions to table at all and just let proposals get voted down the old-fashioned way, by actually getting voted down. (And yes, I do realize I just proposed one, but that was based on earlier precedent. I'd be fine with not having motions to table).

In its present form I'm opposed to this proposal. Too much power for too few people.
 
It would be a shame if a tiny minority and the Speaker would ever block a motion to table, but, if you think about it, the Regional Assembly should be in a position to recognise that if it does occur, and then I guess their only options on it would be to recall the speaker or write a revised motion.
 
Chasmanthe:
It would be a shame if a tiny minority and the Speaker would ever block a motion to table, but, if you think about it, the Regional Assembly should be in a position to recognise that if it does occur, and then I guess their only options on it would be to recall the speaker or write a revised motion.
Click to expand...
And yet not only can that happen, it will happen. And the only recourse will be a difficult, probably uphill battle to get the Speaker recalled? No thanks. I personally would rather just not have motions to table. If a proposal is unworthy it will be voted down when it goes to a vote. Putting every proposal effectively in the hands of a minority of four people is asking for perpetual gridlock.
 
The problem is the point of such a motion is to stop people wasting RA time, you're just consuming more time if you have to vote on it as well. =/
 
Kingborough:
The problem is the point of such a motion is to stop people wasting RA time, you're just consuming more time if you have to vote on it as well. =/
Click to expand...
I do understand the point and I sympathize with the problem, but the solution can't be giving three random people and the Speaker the power to block any vote. What if 15 people agree with a proposal but 3 people call for a motion to table and the Speaker agrees? If we're going to concentrate that much power in so few hands we might as well abolish a directly democratic legislature and transition to a representative legislature. I'm not saying I'm in favor of that, but at least in that system the power would be in the hands of an elected few instead of a random few and one elected Speaker.
 
If the speaker was making random decisions on which table motions to accept and which to reject, then it would be a problem. Yes, indeed, the vocal minority would be able to block legislation that the silent majority wanted, and I can see the wrong in that. The system does work, because the speaker does use common sense. If he makes a mistake the whole Regional Assembly is there to pick him up on it and it goes to a vote. There has not been a speaker recall the whole time I've been on this forum, so I'm not aware of exactly how much wasted time it is costing.

THE SPEAKER: Sorry, I was testing turning off signatures on peoples posts. Ignore me.
 
The problem with a Table, even by this law, is that it really only requires three people. So literally every RA member but three, one of which could quite easily be the Speaker, can be for something and those three people can and will shut it down.

I call that the tyranny of the minority.
 
^ I agree with BW. I would certainly use a motion to table as a delaying tactic if I did not want something to pass.
 
flemingovia:
^ I agree with BW. I would certainly use a motion to table as a delaying tactic if I did not want something to pass.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.

I am concerned that this gives too much power over to the position of the Speaker in its current form. At this moment there is no way to overturn a motion to table by the rest of the RA and that is a definite problem. This is a major problem because if a popular bill is not supported by the Speaker and a few other people, they can merely chair the bill with the motion and the rest of the group will be unable to do anything about it.

The recall vote may have been suggested but let's be honest... that's unfeasible. A recall vote would take two weeks to conduct and then would require another week of campaigning and voting to put in the new Speaker. What if this begins to happen on a regular basis? What if, when the Speaker tables a bill that a few people... even just two... like, they attempt to motion for a recall of the Speaker? Keep in mind, either the Speaker can't table that (because it's a motion) or can when two people motion to table the motion. If the latter is correct, then this can ensure that the Speaker remains in power at least until the next election.

This is a dangerous idea. Unless we have a better way to overturn a motion to table, I do not believe this new rule will bode well for the future of the North Pacific.
 
Can we just simply raise the limit of RA members for tabling a vote? Instead of having just three, perhaps have five people request a table for it to be effective under law?
 
Wouldn't people simply vote down the motion to table? And then hold the vote as needed.

If a motion to table passes, then the matter clearly doesn't have enough support to even be considered.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Wouldn't people simply vote down the motion to table? And then hold the vote as needed.

If a motion to table passes, then the matter clearly doesn't have enough support to even be considered.
Click to expand...
The proposal doesn't allow the full RA to vote on a motion to table. It allows one person to motion to table, then if someone seconds and thirds that motion and it is approved by the Speaker the proposal is tabled. That means four people could block a proposal no matter how popular it is.
 
Ah I see.

Well I would prefer that we actually VOTE on the motion to table. I don't like the idea of a few people blocking it, when the majority may well want it.
 
Maybe require a 2/3 supermajority for a motion to table vote? That is, if there's a motion to table a bill, it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the RA to do so?
 
What is the point of voting on whether or not to table a vote when we can, in the exact same amount of time, simply vote on the motion in question, with the exact same result if it is rejected? All this would do is create the capacity to delay votes you oppose.
 
Belschaft:
What is the point of voting on whether or not to table a vote when we can, in the exact same amount of time, simply vote on the motion in question, with the exact same result if it is rejected? All this would do is create the capacity to delay votes you oppose.
Click to expand...
In the case of what Belschaft said, we can just establish a rule that when the majority of the vote does not exceed 55%(can be 60%, within that range) and the number of voters does not exceed 95%, the motion is automatically tabled.

The percentages can be debated, thus can be voted to be implemented.
 
So are you saying that we should vote on whether or not to vote on a bill?

Cease these shenanigans at once.

I do not favor any rule of the sort, as I see this unnecessary.
 
DRUK:
Belschaft:
What is the point of voting on whether or not to table a vote when we can, in the exact same amount of time, simply vote on the motion in question, with the exact same result if it is rejected? All this would do is create the capacity to delay votes you oppose.
Click to expand...
In the case of what Belschaft said, we can just establish a rule that when the majority of the vote does not exceed 55%(can be 60%, within that range) and the number of voters does not exceed 95%, the motion is automatically tabled.

The percentages can be debated, thus can be voted to be implemented.
Click to expand...
Scandigrad:
So are you saying that we should vote on whether or not to vote on a bill?

Cease these shenanigans at once.

I do not favor any rule of the sort, as I see this unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Scandigrad and Belschaft are absolutely right.

Now that's a sentence I don't think has been uttered before!

Since I agree with the above. I see two possibilities. Either the speaker disapproves all motions to table. Or, bring motions for the removal of members who have been proposing table motions. Once those members are removed, the motions can be untabled and they will proceed to a vote. Time consuming but democratic.
 
I don't think the removal of members is necessary at all.

I suppose if we are to keep things simple, the easiest thing to do would be to not allow motions to table, and simply vote down the legislation.
 
^ that. There is absolutely no need whatsoever. They're a delaying tactic that are unnecssary. If you don't like something, simply vote it down. It's not like we can only vote on one thing at once.
 
I see a certain contradiction here. We pass a law which basically says that the Attorney General has to pursue any case that is brought to them, no matter how silly, and her we have an attempt to put in place a mechanism that allows a Speaker to table a motion they think is unworthy of going to full vote.

Let's have some consistency. I think The RA is perfectly capable of dismissing silly motions, rather than the speaker and two or three others being able to stop a motion coming to the Regional Assembly.

Let me put a hypothetical scenario to you... at some point in the future, a delegate goes Rogue. He has little support, but one of the supporters is the Speaker of the RA. Someone proposes a recall of the delegate, in order to give the opposition some legal basis.

The speaker prompts three of the delegate's supporters to propose a motion to table the motion, using this rule 6. On that basis, the speaker closes down the recall debate.

This is potentially a tool of tyranny. I cannot support it.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Well I would prefer that we actually VOTE on the motion to table. I don't like the idea of a few people blocking it, when the majority may well want it.
Click to expand...
This.

By having a vote, this becomes a statement by the R.A. that the main matter about which the motion to table is made should not go to a vote.

Just voting things down doesn't always convey that meaning.
 
But it's a waste of time. TNP really does not need more things that can enable things to be stalled even more.

The other issue with motions to table is that brits at least will instinctively read it with the reverse meaning (I always have to catch myself) and you'll get confused voters (not that I think there should be a vote at all).
 
The british meaning is irrelevant. If tabling is defined in the laws then it's irrelevant if another meaning exists. People just have to be open-minded and learn the meanings by experience.
 
By that argument, we could decide to define an "Aye" vote as "Nay" and everyone would just have to adapt. The British meaning is quite relevant - when we write laws, we should aim to use non-ambiguous language because we are playing something with international scope.

But you've just got the ignorant attitude that Brits should dissapear up their own arses.

I remain opposed to this regardless - I'm just saying that it's another reason that I dislike this.
 
Regarding the whole terminology debacle, should this new rule be enacted, we can always use "dismiss" or "drop" instead of "table". I do not see why we need to stick with "table". Yes, legislating the definition makes the term unambiguous in our context; no, if it is not obvious to at first reading, that does not mean it is good terminology.

Regarding the rule itself, I agree with those saying that it is potentially dangerous and unnecessary, as the RA can just vote down motions they disagree with.
 
r3naissanc3r:
Regarding the whole terminology debacle, should this new rule be enacted, we can always use "dismiss" or "drop" instead of "table". I do not see why we need to stick with "table". Yes, legislating the definition makes the term unambiguous in our context; no, if it is not obvious to at first reading, that does not mean it is good terminology.

Regarding the rule itself, I agree with those saying that it is potentially dangerous and unnecessary, as the RA can just vote down motions they disagree with.
Click to expand...
Tabling is seldom necessary in any debate or voting procedure, when the reasons for the debate itself, as well as those for voting becomes too irrational as a whole.

My take on this, revised from the one aforementioned, is to abolish tabling rights of the delegates, establish a "limited tabling right" by arbitrator(s) (can be up to 2 or 3), and make the table available for just once or twice within a specific time frame(such as 2 to 3 months).

This prevents any misuse of power amongst TNP RAs.
 
Rather than a motion to table, I'd like to have some guidelines around the minimum time a motion can move from the motion to vote. For instance, when someone makes a recall motion if the very next post is a second, I believe right now things will go to vote. It seems that the custom has been to wait 48 hours to allow for some debate, but I think we should build in the minimum debate time frame.

I'm not sure if that's 2, 5, or 7 days. To me, the motion to table is to stop a vote and I only see one reason to delay a vote and that is because there hasn't been enough time to debate. i don't see any reason to stop a seconded motion from coming to vote...we do enough of that kind of thing in the US Congress.

So I propose we establish formal debate timelines with some exceptions to speed up votes in cases of emergencies (we'd need to define this).
 
The present problem is that anyone can second a idiotic proposal and I am forced to take it to a vote, wasting RA time. For example if someone had seconded Tyler's motion to ban defenders back a couple of months then we would be forced to waste time voting on it even if it was the most useless piece of legislation ever.

I do see your concerns, but I have no clue how else to resolve such problems as the above without something like this.
 
Abbey Anumia:
But it's a waste of time. TNP really does not need more things that can enable things to be stalled even more.

The other issue with motions to table is that brits at least will instinctively read it with the reverse meaning (I always have to catch myself) and you'll get confused voters (not that I think there should be a vote at all).
Click to expand...
Chasmanthe:
The british meaning is irrelevant. If tabling is defined in the laws then it's irrelevant if another meaning exists. People just have to be open-minded and learn the meanings by experience.
Click to expand...
Abbey Anumia:
By that argument, we could decide to define an "Aye" vote as "Nay" and everyone would just have to adapt. The British meaning is quite relevant - when we write laws, we should aim to use non-ambiguous language because we are playing something with international scope.

But you've just got the ignorant attitude that Brits should dissapear up their own arses.

I remain opposed to this regardless - I'm just saying that it's another reason that I dislike this.
Click to expand...
Chasmanthe:
Me?
Click to expand...
Abbey Anumia:
Who else would I be referring to?
Click to expand...
I take no pleasure in making a fool of you Abbey but I am not the one with an ignorant attitude. I don't think anybody should disappear up their own arses. If you want to comment on my attitude towards Brits then we should definitely have a debate on this forum about it!

I'm happy for you to amend the constitution so that you use a word other than table. But the fact you cannot distinguish between the two meanings is a weakness on your part, not the constitution's.
 
Easy solution. Set a minimum numerical requirement like a total of 10 votes (abstentions included) that must occur withing a certain period of time (say, two days for the sake of argument) and the bill is automatically 'tabled' as a pro-forma matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top