Senate Resolution to Amend Article IX of the OSPR (Passed)

[minionofmidas]

Senate Resolution to Amend Article IX of the OSPR

Article IX, Section 2 of the OSPR shall be amended to read:
"Any new Senator may change the vote of his/her predecessor unless the time for allowing the changing of votes has passed. If no change is made, the vote of the outgoing Senator shall remain valid.
In the case of Senators elected under a multi-member Single Transferable Vote system, newly elected Senators, in the order of their election, shall be deemed to be the successors of any incumbent Senators not reelected, in order of their election.


Sponsor: Lewis Trondheim


For reference

[minionofmidas]

My apologies. This is not on the floor yet, and will take its rightful place in the queue.

[minionofmidas]

Now it's on the floor.

[minionofmidas]

hmmm... I don't really know what to think of this. Anyone want to give me pros and cons?

The first half of it already is in the OSPR. The problem is that, with PR elections, there is no obvious predecessor.
Now... if the Senate goes as inactive at changeover time as it did this time - but I would hope that doesn't repeat itself - it hardly matters - it sort of mattered on exactly one vote this time around. But if the Senate remains active, and there's close votes going on, it could conceivably get very problematic, and some sort of solution is needed.
This is the one I came up with. The wording may need some work still.
If you got a better one, I'm all ears.

[minionofmidas]

Seems good

Lewis, I forget what was the precendent you used regarding my vote and Colin's in the same measure?  Since the precendent was set I'd like to go with that again

I didn't set one, actually. I said "5 or 6 ayes depending on (...)" There was an abstention too.

[minionofmidas]

I have the same concern as to whether "order of election" is adequately defined.

Could you maybe write up a good definition?

[minionofmidas]

"seniority" now defined as in the parts of the OSPR dealing with dean, ie in terms of length of uninterrupted service, with the actual swearing-in timestamp as tiebreaker. This should work.

Was this offered as a friendly amendment? I would accept it as such.

[minionofmidas]

Seems from a reading of the OSPR that I can accept it as friendly irrespective of whether the introducer called it one. So yeah, I'm doing that right now. Senators have 24 hours to object. If anybody objects it goes to a vote.

[minionofmidas]

I prefer keeping the swearing-in order of new Senators out of it, as that's potentially too gameable.

If two or more newly elected Senators shall have been elected in the same round of counting, they shall be considered elected in the order of their vote totals. If elected in the same round with the same vote total, they shall be considered elected in order of vote totals in preceding rounds of the vote count.

Is that precise enough?

[minionofmidas]

Righto... getting some order in here...

The friendly amendment to change the second para. to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

has been accepted.

I am now accepting a friendly amendment to add

You must be logged in to read this quote.

at the end.

Senators have 24 hours to object.

And unless Verily tells me either that he withdraws it or that it wasn't actually offered as an amendment, just a piece of debate, we will then vote on whether we want to replace the latter bit with

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I'd like people - including myself - to make it clear whether a text is formally introduced as an amendment or not in the future.

[minionofmidas]

The PR Act has a count of second preferences where you have the post count. Besides, I don't like the wording "the Dave Leips website". Not accepted as friendly.

So... the vote is on Verily's amendment.

Current text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Boy, is this buster getting verbose.)

The vote is on whether to replace the red bit with

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please vote aye, nay or abstain.

[minionofmidas]

OK, I give up. It may give the court some more work, which can't be all bad.

Are you saying you're withdrawing your amendment or...? Because otherwise, it'd go to a vote later...

[minionofmidas]

Nay


Re Torie: Noted.

[minionofmidas]

Nay


Re Torie: Noted.

You are voting against your own bill?

No, we're voting on Verily's version right now.

Sorry Verily... I went with the info I had...

Vote Count:

Aye 1 (Torie)
Nay 5 (Lewis, Verily, Sensei, Al, Bacon)
abstain (voted) 1 (Dwtl)
abstain (did not voe) 3 (Meeker, Culture, Jas)

This amendment has failed.

[minionofmidas]

Time to move for a final vote...

The vote is on adoption of the Resolution. Please vote aye, nay or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[minionofmidas]

Vote Count:
Aye 7 (Torie, Lewis, Sensei, Meeker, Bacon, Jas, Culture)
Nay 0
abstain (voted) 0
abstain (did not vote) 3 (Al, Verily, Dwtl)

The Resolution has enough votes to pass. As the vote is unanimous, there is no 24-hour vote changing period. As it's resolution about Senate procedural matters, it is not presented to the President for his signature.
Law'd and wiki'd.