Overiding the Veto on the Atlasian Worker Defense Bill

[Filuwaúrdjan]

if voting is still open, then you change change from abstain to aye/any-iirc, I set a precedent for that when we were voting on new regional maps.

Then we need a new precedent

[Gabu]

if voting is still open, then you change change from abstain to aye/any-iirc, I set a precedent for that when we were voting on new regional maps.

Maybe there are some new senate rules, but if not the precedent is that it is allowable.

I was actually just attempting to find a topic in which I recall you changed your vote from abstain to aye just to pass the bill, because I could have sworn that it happened before.  Maybe it was that one; I can't remember.

At any rate, I personally think that you should be able to be able to change your vote during the time that voting is still open, but that's just me.  I can see your point.  I'll go with whatever the PPT says.

Geez, right now i' violating my own proposal

Now you see why I didn't want to have it enacted.

[Platypus]

well, in my proposal Al wouldn't be yelling at you either so there would be no need for me to butt in

[Gabu]

well, in my proposal Al wouldn't be yelling at you either so there would be no need for me to butt in

But that would make things so boring.

[Defarge]

I've changed my vote from Abstain to Aye or Nay before. 

[minionofmidas]

I see no problems with changing your vote while voting is open in the Senate - it's not as if there was great room for tactical behaviour anyways.
I'd also like to point out that Gabu#s decision has no effect whatsoever - you need seven yeas to override anyways, there's no difference between an abstention and a nay in an override vote.

[Platypus]

if voting is still open, then you change change from abstain to aye/any-iirc, I set a precedent for that when we were voting on new regional maps.

Then we need a new precedent

wouldn't that be a postcedent?

*buboomchi*

[7,052,770]

Yes, precedent suggests that Gabu can change his vote, and I will record it as a nay.

[JohnFKennedy]

It is perfectly legitimate for Gabu to change his vote, it has been done before, IIRC by me at one point.

[Siege40]

Aye.

Siege

[WMS]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

[Bono]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

How can it go too far? The only possible courses of action are staying, with all the problems inherent to it, or pulling out.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Here's an idea: count the vote switching for this vote, but don't do it again.

[Gabu]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

How can it go too far? The only possible courses of action are staying, with all the problems inherent to it, or pulling out.

Can't we attempt to fix it?  I think that that course of action would be a lot more agreeable to Canada and Mexico than to just suddenly and unilaterally drop it.

[Bono]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

How can it go too far? The only possible courses of action are staying, with all the problems inherent to it, or pulling out.

Can't we attempt to fix it?  I think that that course of action would be a lot more agreeable to Canada and Mexico than to just suddenly and unilaterally drop it.

We are waiting six months(of game time) to pull out, and we are negotiating a trade agreement with canada. What do you want more?

[Gabu]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

How can it go too far? The only possible courses of action are staying, with all the problems inherent to it, or pulling out.

Can't we attempt to fix it?  I think that that course of action would be a lot more agreeable to Canada and Mexico than to just suddenly and unilaterally drop it.

We are waiting six months(of game time) to pull out, and we are negotiating a trade agreement with canada. What do you want more?

But NAFTA is already a trade agreement with Canada (and Mexico, and I support one with Mexico as well); I'm not sure why we need to completely scrap this one to just make another one.

Also, why are we negotiating a trade agreement with Canada before we even knew whether or not this would pass?  Who's doing the negotiating if PBrunsel doesn't support this bill?

[Bono]

Upon further consideration, while I don't think NAFTA is a panacea nor perfect, this bill goes a bit too far. I change my vote to nay, for much the same reasons as Senator Gabu. I would like to see changes in NAFTA, but not through an outright pullout.

How can it go too far? The only possible courses of action are staying, with all the problems inherent to it, or pulling out.

Can't we attempt to fix it?  I think that that course of action would be a lot more agreeable to Canada and Mexico than to just suddenly and unilaterally drop it.

We are waiting six months(of game time) to pull out, and we are negotiating a trade agreement with canada. What do you want more?

But NAFTA is already a trade agreement with Canada (and Mexico, and I support one with Mexico as well); I'm not sure why we need to completely scrap this one to just make another one.

Also, why are we negotiating a trade agreement with Canada before we even knew whether or not this would pass?  Who's doing the negotiating if PBrunsel doesn't support this bill?

Because this one presuposes regulations and restrictions, while a trade agreement with canada is simply saying we won't charge tariffs between us on the specified goods.
We are not, that's why the 6 months waiting period is for.
The secretary of state is forced to, under the terms of the bill.

[Siege40]

NAFTA needs to be renegotiated or actually enforced. The United States is currently violating the treaty with protectionist policies. I think it may need to be rebuilt from the ground up or scraped entirely if the nations involved have no intention of following it.

Siege

[??????????]

After much consideration.

NAY[/color]

[JohnFKennedy]

With five votes in favour to four opposed this override has failed. *bangs gavel*

[The Duke]

For historical reference, let me point out that I can't recall a veto that has been overridden ever here, and both bills that were vetoed had enough votes to override if they had kept their whip count together.  Wonder why, but it may be the authority of the Presidency carries a lot.

[Nym90]

I vote yea to override, for the record.

Sorry I was out of town for a few days.

[Peter]

For historical reference, let me point out that I can't recall a veto that has been overridden ever here, and both bills that were vetoed had enough votes to override if they had kept their whip count together.  Wonder why, but it may be the authority of the Presidency carries a lot.

The Senate overrode the veto of the None of the Above (and possibly Below) Act as well as the Clean Energy Act. To my knowledge, this is the first bill to remain off the books after a veto, though I'm not too sure about that.

[Bono]

For historical reference, let me point out that I can't recall a veto that has been overridden ever here, and both bills that were vetoed had enough votes to override if they had kept their whip count together.  Wonder why, but it may be the authority of the Presidency carries a lot.

The Senate overrode the veto of the None of the Above (and possibly Below) Act as well as the Clean Energy Act. To my knowledge, this is the first bill to remain off the books after a veto, though I'm not too sure about that.

Marijuana.

[Akno21]

For historical reference, let me point out that I can't recall a veto that has been overridden ever here, and both bills that were vetoed had enough votes to override if they had kept their whip count together.  Wonder why, but it may be the authority of the Presidency carries a lot.

The Senate overrode the veto of the None of the Above (and possibly Below) Act as well as the Clean Energy Act. To my knowledge, this is the first bill to remain off the books after a veto, though I'm not too sure about that.

Marijuana.

And one of my education bills, but we got another one passed and not vetoed.