Let's Stop Worrying About Numbers Bill

flemingovia:
Actually, I may run for speaker just so that I can do this. And then block any bills coming to vote at all until I am recalled. TBH, I think we could stop passing legislation altogether and I do not think anyone would notice much.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a solid platform for your campaign.
 
Given the propensity of different numerical systems currently in use as well as alphabetical versus numerical symbols, or the use of ordinal versus cardinal numbering, you probably would need to specific cardinal Arabic numerals just to be safe.

There are real life constitutions that use a combination (the US state of Georgia cites provisions of its constitution in the form of "Art. 1, § I, Cl. 1" and we won't get into Hebrew, Chinese and Japanese whose native numbering did not use Arabic numerals either.
 
*perks* Did somebody say cheeseball?

0004178000359_500X500.jpg
 
As to my understanding, Yes, I believe the Speaker has explained to me no more than two bills at a time can be voted on. Also if it is a proposal on the same topic, as the last four votes have been on renumbering and fixing and changing errors, to let the other votes expire before posting a new one on the similar topic to avoid confusing potential RA voters. So they dont read one and accidently cast a vote they meant for the other. Or vice-versa.

If I am in error, The Speaker I am sure will correct me.

Rules of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific:
Section 2. Voting

1. No more than two votes to enact, amend or repeal laws may take place simultaneously at any time.

2. Unless otherwise required by law, votes of the Regional Assembly will last for a minimum of three and a maximum of seven days.

3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.

4. If at least one-tenth of the members of the Regional Assembly object to the duration of a vote of the Regional Assembly decided by the Speaker before the conclusion of the vote, then that vote will last for the maximum duration permitted by law.

5. If at the conclusion of a vote quorum has not been achieved, then the Speaker may extend the duration of the vote to the maximum permitted by law.
Click to expand...

That answers the former, the latter about the same subject matter is more discretionary, or I may have misunderstood and my head created that. ;)
 
Given that my bill should have been out of formal debate and scheduled fully two days ago, why shouldn't my bill go to vote as soon as there is a position open in the queue?
 
Well Should have been and What actually happens are two different things. Granted that was our (Speakers office) Mistake and on behalf of said office I aplogize. Secondly, I am still new to the process and trying the best I can, I wanted to let the other two votes of a similar topic fall off so as not to confuse the RA. As of now there are two votes on the similar topic, but one is legislative and the other non-legislative. If we allow this to go to vote as soon as there is room there would be two legislative votes on the same similar topic.

Finally, I dont know if the speaker who schedules the vote also has to create the thread. Or if any speaker may schedule and any speaker may make the thread. But I looked at the RL calandar and picked the next day I have a full day off work where I had more time to code and post the thread. That is why I arbitrarily assigned the 1st.

If you'd like a vote sooner, I will talk to the Speaker and ask him when He'd like to schedule it.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Given that my bill should have been out of formal debate and scheduled fully two days ago, why shouldn't my bill go to vote as soon as there is a position open in the queue?
Click to expand...
I concur.
 
I should note, as the Assembly has determined it does not much care whether two or more bills of similar intent move to vote simultaneously, I shall overrule the Deputy Speaker on the matter of scheduling a vote and, therefore, a vote shall begin later today.
 
Not really - this particular procedure exists at the speaker's whim. So it's not exactly overruling procedure for him to make exceptions.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Not really - this particular procedure exists at the speaker's whim. So it's not exactly overruling procedure for him to make exceptions.
Click to expand...
Ok let's start a clock to see when this is used again.

We may be around 3-5 hours and counting. I'd bet a lunch we pass 365days easily.
 
What's my point?

My point is that it is rare that common sense overrules procedure. That is my point.
 
Yes, when standard precedent means never deviating from the standard procedure.

When we had the two bills at a time discussion, I always thought it was silly. I am glad that in this instance, that wasn't done. That's all I'm saying.
 
punk d:
What's my point?

My point is that it is rare that common sense overrules procedure. That is my point.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that indicate that procedure is generally sensible, and only in rare instances needs to be excepted?
 
My experience when I was Speaker was that there was never a problem with multiple votes going on at the same time; the only problem was opening votes that overlapped with different voting periods.

But the way this system works now is so arbitrary and capricious that it allows underhanded tactics and favoritism for a favored few. Based on this exception, it's now very clear that delaying the vote on my proposal instead of allowing simultaneous voting was arbitrary and was intended for the controlling block of the R.A. to line up their ducks in order.

Quack! Quack!
 
Yes, anyone who agrees with me on anything is a duck. You heard him, 50% of the voters on his omnibus bill, and over 75% of the voters so far on this one.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
My experience when I was Speaker was that there was never a problem with multiple votes going on at the same time; the only problem was opening votes that overlapped with different voting periods.
Click to expand...
As has been stated before, that restriction exists in order to protect RA members from losing their membership, either from happenstance or deliberate manipulation of the RA.
 
If I may, the procedure relating to more than two simultaneous legislative votes was not overruled, the delay of the Omnibus Legislative Corrections bill was not due to a procedure but due to my own preference, however, as the Assembly supported an immediate vote on that bill, it is evident it does not share my preference so I have not endeavoured to force said preference on the Assembly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top