| 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: |
| Senate Voting Guidelines 2010 - Amendment; again | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 11 Apr 2010, 13:51 (32 Views) | |
| Wibblefeet | 11 Apr 2010, 13:51 Post #1 |
|
AWP Veteran
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Since the last thread/set of amendments died/was voted down with NEW amendments just brought up but undicussed an unvoted upon, I'm taking it on myslef to bring them back up here, since there's been no comments in that thread in 9 days. - = - = - Here's the bill's text. the proposed amended sections are struck out, the amendments themselves are in bold. Note: These amendments include Neanbear's suggested timeline amendments, A rewrite of Turl's amendment for changing votes, a rewrite of Turl's "Founder's debate Extension" suggestion; and a total rewrite of clause 3, which didn't parse well at all. Note that while I still think clause 7 is stilted, I left it alone, since it was intelligible. - = - = - The Act of Senate Voting Guidelines 2010 AWP will refer to 00000 A World Power This bill will set proper guidelines on the procedures of voting and improve on the Senate Bill Acceptance 2009 improving the guidelines and putting in a set rule on how to vote, keeping it in effect however amending some of the original bill. Introduction Noticing that some bills are often left in a queue and never remarked upon and that some immediately go to voting and dont get past, and understanding that the debating and alteration of these bills could result in it being passed and a useful piece of legislation not being implemented. This bill is amending points in the Senate Bill Acceptance 2009 and will null the old bill out of effect. Body 1. The first stage of a bill is the first posting, this will be the original copy of a bill given to the senate to be discussed and voted on, unless a member has changed it since the time of posting a copy to be placed into the senate to the time it is, if so he must post the new copy in the same thread stating it is the version he wants in the senate. 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 3. If amendments have been made to a bill under debate, the original author is given 48 hours to reject the amendments, after which they shall be considered accepted. After 48 hours, or if the author accepts amendments earlier, a complete new version of the bill shall be posted in the original thread (with the first post linging to the current verion of the bill) or a new thread. 4. As long as there is no objection to the bill posted in the second posting then it will be put up to vote. 5: Voting will last a maximum of 72 hours from the opening of the vote on any bill. Voting may ber terminated earlier if a majority (50.1%+) of all voters have agreed to pass or fail the bill. 6. If a member has changed their opinion in regards to a action before the Senate before the voting is finished, they may change their vote ONCE per piece of legislation, in the relevant voting thread. If voting has terminated on a action before the Senate, successfully or unsuccessfully, they must represent the article for a second vote or repeal to the Senate. 7. A bill may be re-voted on twice however can only be voted on a third time if there is substantial evidence that it deserves to that will be decided by the elected senators between them by voting whether to bring the vote up again. 8. After this point a bill may not be voted on again unless substantial parts of it has been changed, at a minimum an entire clause being rephrased or changed or removed. This will be added or amended with the following clauses of the Senate Bill Acceptance Act of 2009 added to it amended from their original form, removing all other clauses from AWP Law. 9. This bill hereby states that from the date of ratification on into the future, all bills, laws, and legislation or any other form of policy changing directive that is debated and/or voted on by the senate body of AWP shall require a quorum before being passed, and brought into production or activity. 10. The senate body is defined as the: Elected World Assembly Delegate, Regional Founder, Elected Senators, and Appointed Ministers. 11. A quorum, for the purposes of this bill, shall be defined as 66.6% or greater of all senate members registering a vote. A member actively refusing to vote shall have his vote considered as an abstained position, and shall register as a vote. 12. All bills, laws, legislation, and policy changing directive must have a majority vote, meaning 50.1% or greater of all percentages of votes. 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 14. If no one continues the debate, after 15. If a Senate member does continue the debate, the 16. The Delegate is the active senator who will check that bills go through this timetable of events before they are voted on, if he feels that the bill has not gone through the proper procedure he can veto it, if he feels there is a reason to repeat a stage, i.e a flaw appearing at after the bill has been passed and feels the senate didn't spennd enough time debating to account acknowledge this flaw. 17. The Founder may, at their absoulte discretion, choose to extend the time requirements for discussion and debate of any bill, delaying a vote to no more than 168 hours (one week) from the last debate or legislative action, if they have reason to believe that action may be forthcoming from idle/vacationing senate members. Original Authored by Liberty987. |
|
AWP Citizen, Herald of Rucket Park, former TNI Agent-in-place. | |
![]() |
|
| Numero Capitan | 11 Apr 2010, 15:50 Post #2 |
|
AWP Stalwart
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
apart from spelling absolute right in clause 17 i think this can go to a vote... |
|
The Many Faced God, RDF Commander -- -- ---Awarded AWP Cross--254 RDF missions- | |
![]() |
|
| Turlmanistan | 11 Apr 2010, 16:51 Post #3 |
![]()
Supreme Dillhole
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't like the provision 6 re-write at all. I don't think we should be able to change our votes at all, HOWEVER, if a bill get's brought up for a second vote, you can vote whichever way you like. Everyone was in favor of the language I brought up last time, why can't we just use it as I wrote it? The new language lets people change their vote MID vote, and that just makes thing SUPER confusing. I would like to see the language changed back to as I suggested: 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. |
![]() P.S. - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated! | |
![]() |
|
| Wibblefeet | 12 Apr 2010, 09:20 Post #4 |
|
AWP Veteran
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spelling: sorry, most of the computers here are work are using an ancient IE with no spellcheck in the browser, so some things slip by. Clause 6: Okay, I'm confused here. If you can't change a vote in mid-vote, there is no CHANGE. The vote would pass or fail, and the next time that bill, a similar bill, or a repeal comes up to vote, it's a totally new vote, and you can do what you please. Turl's version of Clause 6 is unnecessary to my mind, but confused me enough as to what he wanted which is why I wrote the Clause 6 I proposed (which i wasn't fully behind). I know of no provision in any law that requires me to vote the same way on a repeat submission of a bill as I did the first time it was presented. I'll leave this for discussion for a few days, but my current inclination (as the current author of these amendments) is to delete clause 6 entirely now, and renumber all successive clauses. Unless someone can tell me clearly and simply what I've missed. It's 430am after a long night of work, it's QUITE possible I've missed something. |
|
AWP Citizen, Herald of Rucket Park, former TNI Agent-in-place. | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Government Archives · Next Topic » |







--
--

7:27 PM Jul 11