Voting System Reform Bill

[Gabu]

Aye, although I'm not sure I like the provision that I'm required to be on the commission.  I don't have all the time in the world and am not really available at the right times if the commission wants to meet on AIM or something like that, although I obviously will do my best if I am placed on the commission.

[Gabu]

With four in favor to one against, and with three absent, this amendment has passed.

[Gabu]

Nay...no Aye...no Nay... no...uh....Aye

Three leadership conventions in one day?  That's a new record.

[Gabu]

With four in favor to one against, and with three absent, this amendment has passed.

A quorum has failed to vote though, the measure must fail.

Oh, right, I forgot that we needed at least six senators to vote... well, we do have that after King voted, so doesn't that count?

Plus, as Emsworth pointed out, a quorum is not (explicitly) needed for amendments to bills.

[Gabu]

Plus, as Emsworth pointed out, a quorum is not (explicitly) needed for amendments to bills.

And, even then, the rules are clear: "Any and all Senators who do not vote will be considered to have abstained."

Yes, but that says nothing about the number of senators you need; a quorum generally refers to a majority of the total number of members in something.  In our case, a quorum means six senators - if less than six senators vote on a resolution, bill, impeachment, or constitutional amendment, the measure will automatically fail even if the percentage of those in favor is adequate.

However, the Constitution does not say that this requirement holds for amendments, so it seems to me that its absence implies that it doesn't, as nowhere is it stated that anything other than those four things requires a quorum.

[Gabu]

Yes, but that says nothing about the number of senators you need; a quorum generally refers to a majority of the total number of members in something.

I know that it says nothing about the quorum; however, it does have an affect on the quorum. By saying that those who have not cast a vote have abstained, the rules say, in effect, that every Senator's default vote is "Abstain." If you do not explicitly vote Aye or No, then you count as an "Abstain" for all purposes, including quorums, under this rule.

Yes... but I'm not sure what your point is.  Senators who don't vote are counted as having abstained, but there's a difference as far as quorums go between stating that you abstain and simply not voting.  It seems to me that if we simply count everyone as having voted "abstain", then the concept of reaching quorum is entirely meaningless and that there'd be no reason to have that in the Constitution.