Abstain Means Abstain on Amendments Amendment

[Colin]

I am actually against this amendment. In such a serious matter as an amendment to the constitution a full two-thirds of the Senate should vote in the affirmative. With an amendment such as this we could have constitutional amendments passing with only 4 Senators in favour in a very extreme scenario thus giving the amendment the backing of only 40% of the Senate instead of the 70% that is now required. While abstentions are needed and should be used regularly in bill and resolution debates we must not compare these to amendments that will actually change the very document that is the basis of our national law.

I believe that it is imperative that this Senate requires that two-thirds of the Senators, not two-thirds of the voting Senators, must approve an amendment for that will ensure that only amendments that have wide reaching support and near full backing from this legislative body will be brought before the regions for the consent of the people. As I said above under this amendment we could see 40% of the Senators passing an amendment if 4 Senators abstain. This, in my mind, is a horrid predicament and if this amendment can only muster four Senators to favour it then, I believe, it should be rejected. 70% of the Senators in favour shows that the amendment has substantial backing from the Senate and has the Senate's full approval for it to change the most supreme law in Atlasia.

[Colin]

Nay