SB 2018-161: MADA Act (Passed)

[cinyc]

Proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don’t see any need for off-cycle debates in some circumstances. For example, who would even debate in an off-cycle debate if there aren’t any declared opponents to the incumbent yet? How can we require a debate every month if there aren’t any participants?

[cinyc]

Proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don’t see any need for off-cycle debates in some circumstances. For example, who would even debate in an off-cycle debate if there aren’t any declared opponents to the incumbent yet? How can we require a debate every month if there aren’t any participants?

Party leaders could debate platforms. The whole point of the bill is to get frequent debates, and once every months IMO is too infrequent.

Even with my bill, nothing would stop the IDC from holding debates more frequently. I just don’t want to put the IDC in a position where they have to hold a useless debate with little participation due to lack of meaningful participants.

As someone who is not part of a party, I don’t find party leader debates all that important. They’re not running for anything.

[cinyc]

So I assume this amendment is unfriendly?

As I said earlier, I’m worried about binding a debate administrator to a debate schedule that might be a tad unrealistic. I’m not sold that there’s much to debate in off-cycle months.

Even after my proposed amendment, nothing would prohibit the IDC from holding debates more frequently. The proposed frequency of debates would be one question to ask during confirmation, I suppose.

[cinyc]

Aye

[cinyc]

Copied from Congressional Discussion Thread:

I'm not sure if this is the area to post this, but if the amendment for the MADA bill passes in the Senate, I will vote Nay on the bill in the House as it removes the major binding function of the bill. Once every two months is almost like our situation now. Once every month provides considerably more debate than present.

I'd rather see a complete bill passed than a half-baked one.

That makes no sense. As I’ve repeatedly said - nothing in my proposed amendment would prohibit the debate moderator from holding more frequent debates. Binding someone to a schedule that is too ambitious isn’t a good idea.

[cinyc]

I think we should take up your amendment after mine has been voted on. I think we can find common ground. Your proposed amendment is a good start. I’ll have specific comments on it if my proposed amendment passes.

[cinyc]

     With four votes in favor and one against, cinyc's amendment is adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Status: Friendly
Sponsor feedback: Origin

     Senators have 24 hours to object.

Here’s my objection: Month really isn’t defined. What if the IDC doesn’t determine that he or she is capable of holding a debate until the month has already passed? We need some sort of mid-month deadline. So, I propose the following change to ii:

ii. If the IDC finds that as of the 15th of at a given calendar month it cannot create a debate, it shall request to the Senate that it be allowed to be exempt from holding a debate for that particular given month.

[cinyc]

I have no problem changing the 15th to the 20th. Currently, I’m informally proposing this as an amendment for the sponsor to take up in his amendment, if that’s possible.