Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Regional Information

Useful links:

NationStates
00000 A World Power
Constitution
Recent Posts

Getting Started:

Citizenship Applications
Regional Defense Force Applications
Join a House!
Information:

Founded in March of 2007, A World Power was once one of the largest regions in Nationstates, and is currently re-building to its former glory! We as a region hold no specific political ideology, but nations organise themselves into Great Houses of likeminded individuals. The leaders of the three largest Houses form a Triumvirate which is responsible for leading the region. We believe in open elections for all citizens of our region and operate a one of the major defender forces in the game, which protects regions across Nationstates from invasion.

Newcomers to the forum should register an account using their nation name, and start a new thread in the Welcome Centre. Make sure you stop by Rucket Park for all your spam and games!

Senators:

Fyraria
Zisudra
Rom

Other Officials:

Minister of the Interior: Benevolent Thomas
Minister of Foreign Affairs: Fyraria
Minister of Imaginary Affairs: Lord Tothe
WA Delegate: Voik
RDF Commander: Numero Capitan
Welcome to A World Power!

Our forum acts as the hub of our community, and is where our Government, Citizens Assembly, and Regional Defence Force are coordinated. But it's not all serious business! The legendary Rucket Park is full of polls, spam games and nonsense chat, our Role Playing Pavilion is the place for all your roleplaying needs, and the A World Power Center is where we get to know each other.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. To sign-up for Citizenship and post on the forums, you'll need to register an account. This allows you to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Register now!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Amendments to the Senate Voting Guidelines
Topic Started: 25 Mar 2010, 15:53 (161 Views)
Turlmanistan
Member Avatar
Supreme Dillhole
 *  *  *  *
So I am proposing 2 amendments to this bill, the first is:

Quote:
 
6. If a senate member wishes to change his vote then he must follow clause 6 of the Senate Bill Acceptance Act of 2009, however they cannot if they wish to change their vote to the side that has won the vote already and may not have the vote recalled then keep their first submitted vote and submit it again, i.e a member may not vote AYE on something, wish to change their vote and, in the second vote, vote AYE again.


Remove the existing language and change that back to the original language from the 2009 bill:

Quote:
 
6. If a member has changed position in regards to their support of a bill, law, or piece of legislation, they must represent the article for a second vote to the Senate.


My reason for this change is, when the person represents the bill, a new forum of debate starts, and they may find that their position change isn't warranted through senate discussions.


My second request is adding a provision to the end of the bill stating:

Quote:
 
The founder may, at any time, for any reason exempt a bill from the governance of any provision(s) of this bill or this bill in its entirety.


My resoning for that is because some bills require a great deal of thought and discussion, and it's pretty evident that for some people in this senate, they just can't make the time to daily talk about things. And it'll curb the "fast pass" attempts we've seen lately, where almost a day after a bill gets proposed, we're voting on that bill.

I'd also like as part of this motion that we have a directive for the minister's of the senate to review the timeline's of the bill as it stands, and to make a reccomendation to the senate on changes. I personally think the 6 hours and 24 hours is no longer appropriate for those of us here in the senate.




So, in summary, this is what I am proposing:
- Change the language of provision 6 to what's suggested above
- Amend the bill adding the provision qouted above
- issue the directive task to the minister's of the region.
Posted Image
P.S. - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Liberty987
Member Avatar
AWP Veteran
 *  *  *  *
I think we should remove clause 6 and allow changes of vote as long as it comes within the time limit of any bill, it is stupid to keep that in as it is just meaning it will take longer fr bills to be voted on and a bill could be restarted for no reason and it just wastes valuable time.

I also don't think neas wants or needs the power to veto bills as it just seems stupid and doesn't really stop fast tracking, and it just lessens democracy if an unelected person who hasn't been decided to hold the position by the senate at all and is just ridiculous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Turlmanistan
Member Avatar
Supreme Dillhole
 *  *  *  *
Please re-read these changes. I am not infavor of allowing people to change their votes. People flip flop too much as it is, and it makes it way too difficult to know when a vote ends. When you vote in Congress or in Parlament, you don't get to change your vote, so when you vote, do so carefully the first time around.

Also, the suggested language does NOT give the founder power to veto a bill. It allows him and only him, to allow a piece of legislation to be voted on without the strict time constraints that currently exist. So if someone proposes a bill, that could potentially change things significantly around here, that it doesn't go to a vote within 24 hours like what currently happens. Such legislation could take weeks to sort out, and SHOULD take weeks to sort out, and should be exempt from the normal, lets have an arcade, or whatever.
Posted Image
P.S. - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ten Stars
Member Avatar
The Man, The Myth, The Legend
 *  *  *  *  *
The first change seems reasonable, but the way I read the new clause, it seems like it could be exploited to ignore a law passed by the Senate.
Most Posts In One Day: 156 (Oct 29, 2009)
Best Newcomer 2009
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Numero Capitan
Member Avatar
AWP Stalwart
 *  *  *  *  *
I agree with the principles definitely. We need to stop people simply saying AYE as soon as people post new ideas up rather than discussing it too, thats really annoying!
The Many Faced God, RDF Commander
--Posted Image-- Posted Image--
-Awarded AWP Cross--254 RDF missions-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ten Stars
Member Avatar
The Man, The Myth, The Legend
 *  *  *  *  *
That I agree on Greek.
Most Posts In One Day: 156 (Oct 29, 2009)
Best Newcomer 2009
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Turlmanistan
Member Avatar
Supreme Dillhole
 *  *  *  *
Ten Stars
Mar 25 2010, 02:37 PM
The first change seems reasonable, but the way I read the new clause, it seems like it could be exploited to ignore a law passed by the Senate.

the only reason I bring up the exemption, is because some future bills might require more than what the senate guidelines allow for a bill. That's why, the power to invoke those exemptions can only come from the founder. If it were any elected person, I'd agree with you, but its Neas, I think we can trust him...
Posted Image
P.S. - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Numero Capitan
Member Avatar
AWP Stalwart
 *  *  *  *  *
Ten Stars
Mar 25 2010, 07:52 PM
That I agree on Greek.

I think you're seeing ghosts...
The Many Faced God, RDF Commander
--Posted Image-- Posted Image--
-Awarded AWP Cross--254 RDF missions-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Turlmanistan
Member Avatar
Supreme Dillhole
 *  *  *  *
Been a few days, so I'll start a vote on this, AYE, or NAY:


AYE
Posted Image
P.S. - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Liberty987
Member Avatar
AWP Veteran
 *  *  *  *
Nay, first change can mean constant revoting, second gives more power to neas and he doesnt want that and I dont want that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Numero Capitan
Member Avatar
AWP Stalwart
 *  *  *  *  *
Aye
The Many Faced God, RDF Commander
--Posted Image-- Posted Image--
-Awarded AWP Cross--254 RDF missions-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Turlmanistan
Member Avatar
Supreme Dillhole
 *  *  *  *
lets keep the voting going here.
Posted Image
P.S. - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ten Stars
Member Avatar
The Man, The Myth, The Legend
 *  *  *  *  *
AYE
Most Posts In One Day: 156 (Oct 29, 2009)
Best Newcomer 2009
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wibblefeet
Member Avatar
AWP Veteran
 *  *  *  *
- bugger.

I'm split on the two amendments proposed as one bill.

Given that, and that the current form of the bill is as acceptable as the whole would be after this change, I vote Nay.
Posted Image
AWP Citizen, Herald of Rucket Park, former TNI Agent-in-place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neanbear
Member Avatar
AWP Stalwart
 *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
2. The bill is opened up to debating. The debating will end when any elected official believes that it has had substantial time since the last post was made. The minimum a bill must be kept up since the last debated post is 24 hours. If a bill is not debated on after 48 hours of last significant post, i.e not a short approval, it is put into a voting procedure automatically. During this time anyone who has Perennial Interest in the voting of the bill must state it and thus abstain from the vote, excluding it being their own bill.


Quote:
 
3. If there has been amendments to the bill a new bill will be posted up since the debating began the new bill is posted in the second posting. 48 hours is given for the author to be able to reject this new bill if he wishes to or any further debate to happen.


Quote:
 
13. If any member of the Senate during the voting period wishes to continue debating, they may invoke a continuance clause. Voting becomes nullified, votes are discarded, and debate continues for another 24 hours.


Quote:
 
14. If no one continues the debate, after 48 hours, an automatic vote gets triggered.


Quote:
 
15. If a Senate member does continue the debate, the 24 hour expiration deadline gets reset, and voting will continue 24 hours after the last point made in the debate or if a motion to end debate and start voting from Senate member who triggered the continuance is seconded by another member of the senate, rendering the continuance expired.


I would like the above amendments to be added. The current time frames for voting/debating are ridiculously short and at least the 12 hour time frames should be amended due to time differences.
Posted Image

^This will be in my signature forever
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Numero Capitan
Member Avatar
AWP Stalwart
 *  *  *  *  *
I'd be happy for us to have a revote with these changes included, they seem decent.
The Many Faced God, RDF Commander
--Posted Image-- Posted Image--
-Awarded AWP Cross--254 RDF missions-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Turlmanistan
Member Avatar
Supreme Dillhole
 *  *  *  *
Wibblefeet
Apr 1 2010, 01:47 PM
- bugger.

I'm split on the two amendments proposed as one bill.

Given that, and that the current form of the bill is as acceptable as the whole would be after this change, I vote Nay.

you do know that right now, as the current bill reads, you can't change your vote, even if the bill is brought to a second vote?

And you also know that most senate members really only check this area for every 3 or 4 days, making it extremely difficult for a quorum? Case in point, that we never even got to hear your thoughts in this until 7 days after the bill was introduced. For certain, important legislation, that our founder, and ONLY our founder Neasmyrna can decide is warranted to be granted under that. I am a guy who tends to bring big decisions away from him, but I am kinda surprised at the lack of trust a few of you have in him...

So this bill has been defeated. It's resubmitted with my original changes PLUS neanbear's new timing suggestions. This is another free vote exempt from provision 6 preventing from changing your vote. This bill is seriously flawed as written lets make a few things right here. BEFORE going to a new vote, is there any concern's among members about what's there? I want to make sure that we can help everyone understand EXACTLY what's going with these changes? IF every member of the senate could post their concerns, even if they have none, just posting that they have none would be great. I don't want to take this to a vote without everyone having their chance!
Posted Image
P.S. - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Government Archives · Next Topic »
Add Reply