SENATE BILL: The Vice President Finally Has a Purpose Amendment (Failed)

[Napoleon]

Why not use the text Cincinnatus suggested? Just in case there aren't ten Senators (like right now, for instance).

I also would suggest removing the restriction on voting for presidential redrafts. While I certainly understand the point to be made about potential conflicts of interest, separation of powers, blah blah, presidential redrafts have many times been used to correct oversights made by the Senate- why make that process more difficult?

[Napoleon]

If it's fixing an oversight, then it's likely unanimously passing the Senate.

Not if its a contentious issue.

[Napoleon]

Not if its a contentious issue.

Then is it really an oversight?

Oversights happen more often than you think. For example: assume this amendment passes. Say the VP's vote passes a bill 6-5. On a presidential redraft, the vote is tied at 5-5. Who breaks the tie? Unless the failure clause applies to these as well..I don't understand why a tied bill should be considered failed. Surely with our creative minds we can do better than this.

Why would anyone withdraw his or her support unless the President were making a substantive change to the bill?

In the example I provided above..anyway, I just want to make sure all bases are covered. Too many times Senators have allowed amendments to pass the Senate without even being functional if they pass.

[Napoleon]

Anyway, if the Veep is going to be (basically) an emasculated Senator, why give him voting power at all? Keep the rules the same as we have regarding ties, and give the Veep the ability to introduce legislation and amendments to bills. That's what I've proposed in the past and seems like it would be nearly the same.

At that point, I don't believe you even need a Constitutional amendment. Just change the OSPR to allow the President of the Senate to introduce legislation and amendments to legislation. It would really save you, and everyone else, a lot of trouble.

[Napoleon]

Thank you Senator.

Now here is what I believe needs discussed next: why does the VP need to be able to vote on legislation? From how I'm reading the amendment, the only time the VP's vote will actually matter on anything is when legislation is tied. So, as far as voting power goes, none is really gained. The net result of a pass/fail would be the same.

[Napoleon]

I don't know if I support this amendment as currently worded.

[Napoleon]

I don't know if I support this amendment as currently worded.

Which words pose a problem for you?

I don't like the idea that a tied vote is considered failed. Also, this statement

Well we have a full Senate now, and I see nothing to gain from delaying any longer here.

wouldn't be true if this amendment were in effect.

[Napoleon]

abstain

[Napoleon]

Change my vote to Nay. The Vice President already has a clear purpose and its up to our President to provide that opportunity. I wonder whether or not a composite list of Vice Presidential purposes would assist us in reaching a consensus. What do you think?

If we do decide that we would like to expand the Senate, I think there are far more interesting and worthwhile ways to go about it.

[Napoleon]

Marokai, you shouldn't be too disappointed, after all, this has sort of become an expectation. Everyone talks about game reform and how important it is, and while some individuals actually take the initiative to write something up, just about every game reform bill is DOA in the Senate, which is unfortunate, because especially since this is a game, I think it's good to try new things that might make it better.

Vice President reform already happened, just because you, and now Marokai, are choosing not to give the VP power doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Napoleon]

Removing powers from someone else (optionally!) and giving them to the VP as a stop-gap measure is not real reform.

Neither is making the VP a Senator, which actually removes power from other people. You can't complain about the VP having little to do when its your fault that is the case.

You're right though- you didn't propose it, so of course its not real reform. It wasn't a stopgap measure though. I don't know why you're trying to rewrite history.

[Napoleon]

Oh dear. Where do I begin? This post is wrong on so many levels. I hope people aren't actually falling for this act, and if this is not an act but an indication of your actual thought process, I am surprised you find yourself qualified to be commenting on the mental health of others.

It absolutely was a stop-gap measure; the motivation behind the proposal was to basically shore up cabinet shortcomings, most notably the Secretary of Internal Affairs, because almost nobody has done a decent job of that office since it was created three and ahalf years ago.

Um, as one of the main sponsors of the amendment, I can firmly deny that it was intended as a stop-gap measure. A lot of Atlasians are newer and aren't aware of what was going on then, but they can do their own research.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Cabinet Flexibility Amendment served two main purposes: the first was to enable more people to fill cabinet positions. You don't need a separate RG and SoFE, for example. I know when we ran against each other you attacked me for this but its obviously proven to be successful when given the chance. The second was to allow the VP to have more of an impact in the executive branch. The Vice President can be given an important Cabinet role and actually serve as a governing partner. Gee, I thought that's what you and Duke said you were going to be. Why not actually do it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was such a terrible idea. Oh no, how did it pass the Senate? How in the world did the terrible idea pass in every region? Those non-reformers Napoleon and Kalwejt, how dare they! We need real reforms, the kind Marokai likes that fail everytime they get proposed or never see any use once passed. We don't need fake reforms like Committees!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll clue you in on a little something: the Cabinet Flexibility Amendment has been used more than your wonderful reforms like the National Initiative or the Regional Legislative Petition. Why propose something that can actually pass; why propose something that can actually be used? Not on Marokai's watch!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depriving someone else of a position? Half of the time we are desperate to fill these positions. You may have received a lot of Cabinet applicants. Every President does. Then the excitement wears off, people resign and the job loses its luster. But a committed VP, an elected representative, will actually have a real motivation to do a good job in a Cabinet position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cool. I didn't actually use that argument, so I don't care if people make that argument or not. I do care that our President-elect is refusing to actually use reforms, claiming a position is broken when its not because he didn't get his way nearly two years ago, and is trying to claim that a successful reform isn't real reform because he didn't come up with the idea. I'm sorry giving the VP Cabinet opportunity isn't as interesting as having politicians dressing up in animal costumes. I'm sorry, sincerely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, no? How is giving it to the VP any different than the other Cabinet officials? They all reflect upon the administration and the President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it matter now which members of the administration have GM-like powers? Did the thought ever occur to you that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

?

Basically, the Senate should approve this amendment because Marokai likes it, and Marokai won't actually give his VP something to do in accordance with the Constitution, because he doesn't like it, and he is going to throw a fit until we do what he says, even though his little pet project has failed time and time again. Oh joy. That's the most convincing argument, like, everrrr.

[Napoleon]

What a bunch of convoluted garbage. I hope this isn't a preview of whats to come. I happen to have approached this proposal with an open mind. In fact, I remember working behind the scenes to try and build support for this very idea within the skeptics in my party and other parties, but eventually decided this wasn't needed. I abstained this time because I didn't like the way it considered a tied vote to fail. When approached by a Senator who asked if I convinced to change my vote, I gave this more consideration and realized that this really isn't necessary. In fact, I already demonstrated that making the VP a Senator would have basically no real effect. Did that not occur to you?

I'm having a difficult time picking out what wasn't obvious trollish bait, so forgive me if my quotes of your post are a bit surgical.

Um, as one of the main sponsors of the amendment, I can firmly deny that it was intended as a stop-gap measure. A lot of Atlasians are newer and aren't aware of what was going on then, but they can do their own research.

If the cabinet was doing a sterling job on it's own, we would not have passed an Amendment giving the VP the power to assume one of the cabinet officials jobs. So yes, it had the dual purpose of also shoring up cabinet weaknesses, and I don't understand how this could possibly be denied.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't even understand what this paragraph means. Everything you said after the first sentence completely contradicts it. How does the Cabinet Flexibility Amendment allow more people to serve in the cabinet? Its expressed function is consolidating offices!

The pool for Cabinet officials is expanded when you can give that position to the VP or another Cabinet member. This isn't rocket science.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The initiative system has been unable to be used effectively because certain people, such as, I don't know, you, insisted on a ludicrously high signature requirement before you would agree to vote on it, essentially dooming it from the start. The first time we tried using it, it got a lot of proposals, attention, and signatures, but everything needed 20+ supporters before it could even be voted on.

And it was Kal's proposal, not mine. I'm just the one trying to Amend the damn thing so it can actually be used.[/quote]

Ok cool. That's not actually true, but ok cool.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a President puts out the call, you can find people to fill these positions. If you wait for people to read Page 12 of the White House thread, three months into a term, or something, you're not going to get many applicants. There were many people, new and old, who applied to serve in my cabinet, and they would've done the same for you, or any other President, had the attempt seriously been made.[/quote] Ok cool. Again, what's your point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It worked great as a matter of fact, thanks for asking. Kalwejt was a damn fine Secretary of External Affairs and was able to serve as an active and able official. I didn't appoint him because there were no other applicants, I appointed him because I felt he was the best for the job and wanted my Vice President to have an active role in real policy-making. So what if Nathan didn't have the time on his hands to serve in the Cabinet? He didn't need to. I picked him as VP becuase I had worked with him and trusted him to serve in the single most important role for the VP- to fill in for the President when needed. And frankly, he's done an excellent job, I can't think of anyone else I'd rather have serving as President during these last couple weeks.

Apparently, others have admitted this role's critical importance:

I don't understand the obsession with trying to give the VP things to do. The VP is traditionally a do-nothing position and he can participate in leading the senate or wait until the President cannot serve.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

?[/quote]

In practice, this means nothing, and only exists so that the GM is a higher authority then SoIA and SoEA. The GM never overrides anything, and this is completely irrelevant. Your proposal is basically that we give the VP Game God powers; as this is somehow totally not a conflict of interest. I refuse to do so. The VP should be given it's own powers, not someone else's.[/quote]

You're literally impossible. Explain what makes the freaking VP any different from a Cabinet official. It's all the same administration, under the same umbrella, picked by the same President...so...

Oh, the GM never overrides anything. Perhaps there hasn't been a need for the GM to override anything? Maybe the VP when serving in the Cabinet hasn't done anything to create a "conflict of interest" as you claim. I made the same argument against the initial GM reform, people disagreed with me and I moved on and worked to improve the concept instead of forcing my own ideas down people's throats.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously; this is the supposedly amazing Senator all those people who don't actually pay attention to Atlasia jerk off over? [/quote]

If that's not your argument, what is? You've provided nothing of substance. I was open to supporting this. No one gave me a reason to vote for it and you're certainly not helping in that regard. I can't be the only one feeling this way either. This failed no matter what my vote was. Here I am actually debating the amendment, offering suggestions and trying to make it something passable. I know one of the Nay voters on this said he liked what I brought up (Hagrid, I believe). What is our supposedly reformist President-elect doing to try and pass this, other than antagonizing people and being, well, a bully?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's funny. I remember discussing this with the VP I picked and he didn't want to be a Senator. I fully intended to pursue this at first but was convinced otherwise. The Cabinet appointment for the VP makes sense. It's an executive position, for a member of the exectuive branch, allows the VP to advocate for the administration in a unique capacity, and forces the VP to be a governing partner, not a credit card you can swipe any time you want more votes. I don't know what your VP selection motives were but you clearly didn't care about making use of the options on the table. That's sad.

[Napoleon]

Extremely disappointed that this failed.

Why?

Many of us are just waiting to hear one somewhat decent argument to change our minds, and we haven't heard a whisper.