So, first immediate issue (potentially) that I notice here is that this de facto changes majority threshold from 9+VP or 10 to simply 10; a bill with 9+VP support could essentially be filibustered by the 9 opposed by refusing to vote, with nuclear option on the rules being the only recourse to pass it.
I don’t know if I find that the best idea.
We could amend the quorum definition to include the VP+9 scenario.
Would this work?
4.) A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the Senate that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid, which must be no fewer than nine members plus the President of the Senate in the event of a tiebreaking vote, and ten members otherwise.
Not quite, needs to just be “ten members, or nine members as well as the President of the Senate”. The issue we’re trying to resolve here is if nine senators are voting for something and the other nine abstain. It’s not a tiebreak scenario but it should still be quorum if VP is there and indicates ‘present’ or the like.
