[DRAFT] Infinite Lanes Revision

[Pallaith]

Just a small proposal this time. I can’t remember the last time our Regional Assembly was this busy, and honestly, I’m not of the mind it’s going to stay that way indefinitely. This flurry of activity will likely cease sooner rather than later. But as far as I’m concerned, that’s all the more reason for the change I want to propose: why do we have a limit on legislative votes in the year of our lord 2025? I looked back at the history, I know why that limit was put in place. That was a different TNP, a different set of rules even. The culture has been successfully retrained. There is no reason to create a line of bills to be voted on, especially when they include uncontroversial matters that had unanimous (stated) support and little debate time.

I trust the Speaker to manage schedules strategically and the citizens to object if abusive practices like what we used to see in 2012 happen again. Enough with these arbitrary shackles.

1. Section 2 of the Regional Assembly Rules will be amended as follows:

1. No more than two legislative votes may take place simultaneously at any time.

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

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

43. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote 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.

54. 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.

65 The Speaker may withdraw a proposal from consideration during a vote at the request of the proposer.

 

[Ayuzh]

Looks reasonable. There shouldn't be a limit for the number of votings . I don't think we need to discuss a lot about this draft

 

[Chipoli]

This is a logical idea.

 

[St George]

Against this, I don't think there's a clear benefit to changing how things work right now and I'd rather not overburden the Speakers Office with having to track and count a great many legislative votes at any one time.

 

[Marcus Antonius]

This makes sense to me, great idea.

 

[Koopa103]

I didn't even know we had a limit. Do away with it, all for it.

 

[Pallaith]

Against this, I don't think there's a clear benefit to changing how things work right now and I'd rather not overburden the Speakers Office with having to track and count a great many legislative votes at any one time.

This is the first time I can think of, probably since I first got here in 2016, that the RA was so active there were bills waiting in a queue to get voted on. Most of the time we have nothing to vote on.

The rule was put in place because back in the day it was super easy for people to push things to a vote, the Speaker had less ability to stop it, and all votes lasted 7 days no matter what. All of these things were tweaked at the same time. Given those other changes, I would argue we never needed the two vote limit. In practice it’s almost never come up, but when it does why shouldn’t we push forward?

The Speaker’s office has shown itself capable of managing its tasks many times in the past. It’s also shown it can struggle with just a single vote on the schedule. Depends entirely on who is in the office at any given time, and if the performance suffers I’m inclined to lay the blame with the officer in charge not the system they operate in, if the system isn’t asking too much by simply leaving open the possibility that there might be more than two votes going at once (something I doubt we’ll see often, possibly even again).

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I support this. The systems in place for the speaker's office are lightyears better than what the region struggled with before. I would like to think they can manage the schedule just fine. At any rate, it should be at the speaker's discretion.

 

[Cosmic]

God, please, if anything, the limit of two just makes scheduling votes harder and more tedious. Support.

 

[Comfed]

Against this, I don't think there's a clear benefit to changing how things work right now and I'd rather not overburden the Speakers Office with having to track and count a great many legislative votes at any one time.

To be fair, if the Speaker's office ever is overburdened, they have the discretion to throttle the number of votes going on without this provision.

 

[Cloud]

This is reasonable. Support.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

I don't think this is needed. I'm more or less apathetic to it.

 

[Sil Dorsett]

I don't think this is needed. I'm more or less apathetic to it.

So you'd rather hamstring the speaker and not let them use their discretion regarding what they can handle? Bruh. If you're apathetic about it, just let it go.

 

[Simone]

Actually I kind of think it's a good idea to change the minimum voting period from three days to five days while you're at it. Just to catch folks who might be away for long weekends and stuff.

 

[Cloud]

Actually I kind of think it's a good idea to change the minimum voting period from three days to five days while you're at it. Just to catch folks who might be away for long weekends and stuff.

I don't see the point in this. The Speaker's office usually schedules votes to last for five days anyway and only really schedules them at the minimum if necessary. It's really up to whoever's going to vote to vote in time.

 

[St George]

So you'd rather hamstring the speaker and not let them use their discretion regarding what they can handle? Bruh. If you're apathetic about it, just let it go.

Former multi-term Speaker here. I was never hamstrung by the two legislative vote limit and it was never a problem. Spreading out votes across a longer period of time encourages good legislative practice anyway.