S1: Act to revise Bill 2's 'revision to the rules of the chamber of delegates'

[West_Midlander]

I vote 'aye.'

[West_Midlander]

I say we move to a final vote on this amendment.

[West_Midlander]

I may have jumped the gun a bit, though there's been none and it's been almost 24 hrs.

[West_Midlander]

Due to post requirements (in proximity to the election, in terms of time), I say we should maintain current Southern voting law.

[West_Midlander]

Due to post requirements (in proximity to the election, in terms of time), I say we should maintain current Southern voting law.

This is about Speakership elections for the Chamber. In March we had an issue involving a vote not being counted (clearly for political reasons in my view.)

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

[West_Midlander]

If we're going that method, wouldn't fhtagn, who edited her ballot nearly five hours after it was cast, have her vote invalidated as well? And besides, where does it say that a ballot is invalidated after 10 minutes anyway? If anything, it would be 15 minutes as is the norm with both federal and Southern elections (read: the ones I run ), which would only invalidate fhtagn's vote.

The reasoning for this subamendment is to clarify how long after a ballot is cast is acceptable to edit. I fully agree (and accept responsibility for my error) that 5 hours past when I cast my ballot, even if it was to fix a typo, was unacceptable. While it may not have broken a specific rule. I do feel that adopting the rule that cuts off edits at 15 minutes is a good idea.

I concur. Certainly ballot-editing should be held to a minimum. 15 minutes is a good cut-off.
We should look over our ballots thoroughly before casting them.

[West_Midlander]

I just don't see it as necessary. I'm a NAY vote unless someone can convince me that there's a good reason.

But of course the person who was bitter about losing out on becoming Speaker over ballot edits has an issue with placing a time limit on them. At least be truthful about why you don't support the subamendment.

I mean this is an election for Speaker, not for a Federal Election, they should obviously have different rules. The rules set a pretty clear standard and are specific to our Chamber. I see no reason to change them.

This is regarding ballot edits, though. It's not something outrageous that makes things difficult for things to get done or is asking too much of those voting. In fact, this subamendment makes things more clear as it is an acceptable rule for all of Atlasia.

I'd have to agree. Certainly things are simpler when we can follow a national example.
I don't have objections to the amendment because in general, the issue at hand is pretty benign and the amendment just provides for more clarity and simplicity regarding the voting rules of the Chamber by being able to refer to the national (all-encompassing) voting law, and making those same regulations and conditions applicable to in-Chamber votes.

[West_Midlander]

For the accuracy of Southern balloting in the Chamber, I vote "aye."

[West_Midlander]

I agree with striking this. As the section stands it allows too much (and up to an unreasonable level) discretion to the office of Speaker.

[West_Midlander]

I agree with striking this. As the section stands it allows too much (and up to an unreasonable level) discretion to the office of Speaker.

I suggest you take a look at some of the bills sponsored by former Delegate Ben Kenobi in March. 2 of those bills were the "Regional Tree Act" and the "Regional Beverage Act".

This isn't absolute power for the speaker. If a majority of Delegates agree that the decision is wrong, they can override it. In many real bodies, the chairman can declare a motion out of order and you need a majority to consider it.

If you think a 3/5 majority isn't enough, think about this: A 3/5 majority can amend the rules however they please, or ignore them entirely. But this won't happen, because Atlasians value the rights of the minority. So there's nothing to gain from repealing this rule, and if we repeal it, we won't have spamming protection anymore, and I will vote no on final passage and lobby the other members of my party to do the same.

Federalists have nothing to worry about with regards to this rule as long as you have at least two delegates, and I am still in the Chamber​.

Valid point.

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[West_Midlander]

but... why? That's just obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.

[West_Midlander]

but... why? That's just obstructionism for obstructionism's sake.

How would you describe the effect that would issue from the striking of clauses b and c?

The Governor would not have an emergency slot, and there would be no thread for civilian submitted legislation.

Ok this amendment is dead in the water then. I'm not going to vote in favor of ditching this.

[West_Midlander]

Can we move to a final vote on the amendment?

[West_Midlander]

Nay

[West_Midlander]

No objection.

[West_Midlander]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

imo the co-sponsor should be able to take over sponsorship if the original sponsor wants to remove the bill. (and/or to contest withdrawal of the bill)

In reference to this: "Co-sponsors of legislation under consideration shall have no power to withdraw legislation" what power would co-sponsors have in withdrawal if this is stricken?

[West_Midlander]

I think they should have the power to contest withdrawal of legislation by the original sponsor, but I don't think they should have the power to withdraw the legislation, since they aren't the original sponsor of the bill.

That being said, the rest of the text covers that, so I have no issue with striking it.

[West_Midlander]

As it changes nothing, NAY.

[West_Midlander]

Is there point to even debating the unwiseness of striking this rule?

No.
This amendment is a perfect case (potentially), if there is a consensus, why hold up the legislative process for two whole days?

[West_Midlander]

Is there point to even debating the unwiseness of striking this rule?

No.
This amendment is a perfect case (potentially), if there is a consensus, why hold up the legislative process for two whole days?

I think there are things that we do quicker provided we have unanimous consent. But that might not be a germane consideration when we weigh this amendment...different matter.

Fair point. I may have jumped the gun to cite this amendment as an example, when it may prove to be contentious.

[West_Midlander]

NAY, why fix something that isn't broken. Also, welcome to the Chamber, dip!