HB 27-06: Congressional Reform Resolution (Passed) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:02:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  HB 27-06: Congressional Reform Resolution (Passed) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: HB 27-06: Congressional Reform Resolution (Passed)  (Read 3155 times)
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« on: December 16, 2020, 05:56:59 PM »

First I would like to say I would have prefered if both chambers and even the general public was involved before the Senate decided how Congress should function.

The proposal is when a bill passes a bill and is sent to the other chamber, there is immediately a vote to adopt it with no debate and modification. If yes it is adopted, if no it goes back in line to be debated. There is no vote immediate vote down option.

The benefit seems to be adopting something with no debate. It gains time but isn't the two chambers system to have the other chamber examine the bill with other eyes. If someone find a flaw or has a big problem votes to debate it but the majority votes to adopt it, that elected officials has not the chance to make a point, give an opinion, try to amend the bill. I think that is the role of the elected official.

Is the vote to debate a simple majority vote or it requires unanimity.

It probably doesn't take long to adopt a bill when everyone says it looks good to me and I'll vote for it. I think there is a minimum debate time before a final vote.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2020, 05:27:46 PM »

Quote
The Senate has not decided how "Congress" will function, that would be unconstitutional. There is a reason our vote is only applied to a single section, ours.

It has not legally decided but it did not involve the other chamber or the game in general since they are elected to serve people. I try to imagine how the proposal would work and I don't see just advantages.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2020, 10:07:27 PM »

As I understand this, a bill is passed in Senate. The House votes to pass it or debate it. I imagine the vote is majority and not unanimity. So House votes 6-3 to pass it. No debate.

I don't like it removes the right of some elected officials to give their opinions or point out problems or mistakes in the bill. It also could lead to less examinition of the bill because if it's not at the debate stage maybe people will just read rapidly or the general idea of the bill.

So I have reservations.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2021, 11:07:03 PM »

Quote
A RESOLUTION
To reduce gridlock and streamline Congressional rule changes

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives and Senate assembled:
Quote
Section 1. Title

1. This legislation may be cited as the J.K. Sestak Congressional Reform Resolution.

Quote
Section 2. Amendment to Senate Rules

1. Article 11 of the New Senate Rules Resolution is amended to read as follows.

Quote from: Article 11: Relationship within the Congress
...
5.) Whenever either house shall consider a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, the President of the Congress shall immediately call a vote in that house on whether to immediately pass the legislation, or further debate it.
a.) The President of Congress shall maintain a single thread in which to preside over these votes as held by both houses, and shall regularly update the title of the thread to inform the Congress of what legislation is being considered in which house.
b.) Should the house vote to debate the legislation further, debate shall proceed in a separate thread as established elsewhere in these rules.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 4-2 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,


Quote
Section 3. Amendment to House Rules

1. Article 10 of the House of the Representatives Rules and Procedures for Operation is amended to read as follows.

Quote from: Article 10: Relationship within the Congress
...
5.) Whenever either house shall consider a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, the President of the Congress shall immediately call a vote in that house on whether to immediately pass the legislation, or further debate it.
a.) Should the house vote to debate the legislation furtherIf there is one vote in favor of debate, debate shall proceed in a separate thread as established elsewhere in these rules.
b.) These votes shall be known as "initial cloture" votes.

I presumed the last amendment will be adopted and after that I am proposing an amendment to 5.a)
I imagine the vote would be a simple majority vote. There is a possibility of a small majority adopting laws without debate. people are elected to the legislature to examine legislation, debate, give opinions and vote. The proposed system would remove the right to voice opinion and debate of a representative when the House votes to adopt without debate. It shuts down voices. To make sure every representative's voice can be heard and do the work they were elected to do, I propose to move to debate if one elected official requests debate. I think this better preserves our representative democracy system. 
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2021, 01:47:44 PM »

While I can't formally object, I don't support this. We've seen unanimous consent used in real life to slow down progress on important bills. I don't want the same thing to happen here.

One more thing. People who, say, aren't Senators, discuss Senate bills in Senate threads all the time. If members of Congress are concerned about something in a bill, and they're concerned that it'll go through their chamber on initial cloture, they can still debate ad nauseam in the other chamber's thread.

How much this rule change affects the amount of debate is entirely dependent on members of Congress -- whether they debate in one thread or another thread, whether they hold things over or not. All this does is give them the option of passing things on a faster timetable. So, I don't think this is necessary.

I'm in the House and focus on House bills. I don't go to Senate threads to see what they are doing before the Senate sends a bill to the House.

If both chambers have to debate on all bills on the two chambers at the same time because maybe you will not have a say when it goes to the other chamber, I guess we might as well have one chamber and not two.

There is a big sign of a presidential ticket running on liberty and activity. Voting not to debate is the opposite of that. It removes the liberty of an elected representative to debate if a majority decides to remove that right and diminish activity because one chamber gets less debate.

It will be easy for the majority in both chambers to strip the right to debate of a minority in the other chamber. You can always go to the other chamber but you don't have the right to vote and you can't propose amendment.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2021, 01:52:01 PM »

I believe unanimous consent will slow down the process significantly and bills will be left in debate endlessly if one representative decides they want to continue to stall with debate.

You can't endlessly debate. It is possible to motion for a final vote and it does not need unanimity.
Last year in happened to me, I wanted to propose an amendment and people went to a final vote.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2021, 01:57:58 PM »

I vote aye on the amendment.
I am not removing the right to debate of an elected representative (or more than one) in their chamber becaue a majority decided to not debate a bill. Skipping debate defeats the point of being elected to represent constituents, debate and examine bills. The majority can pretty much do what they want already so it's not necessary to remove possible debate on top of that.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2021, 06:43:39 PM »

My amendment gives a quick adoption to bills for emergency situations and bills that everyone agrees with without removing the right of one or more elected representatives to advocate against something or give opinions.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2021, 04:40:42 PM »

Quote
Yes, you have stumbled into the correct position here. There is no reason to have two seperate legislative chambers.

So to avoid changing the constitution directly it was decided to implement a new political system: oneandafractioncameral system.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2021, 10:37:58 PM »

Quote
I'd still like to hear your feedback on this, although I'm frankly inclined to add a brief debate period anyway.

I don't know if it changes much. If it's to let a few people say they want to modify something in a bill and a majority doesn't care and skip debate, it's not really a legislative process.

My goal is not to obstruct, it's to let elected officials play their role, to work on every bill. If a bill on a topic that interests me arrives and would like to work on it, and a majority (could be 4 people) decide there will be no debate, how fun is that. You are removing my right to propose amendments and debate and work on all bills in legislature.

It could have been discussed in backrooms but I didn't know people were complaining. Maybe we can change some rules to speed things up or ask to do a quick debate and try to only modify the bill for major changes and not minor things. Or we could move to vote on cloture more quickly. We could try things so we don't go to skipping debate

I didn't like the bicameral choice, and it was not very popular back then and it doesn't seem to be now. Maybe this skipping debate change will lead to show it's not important to have two chambers.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2021, 10:09:24 PM »

What if we made a final vote automatic in the second chamber after a certain amount of time (maybe 96 hours? Shorter? Longer), and let the chamber waive that via five people signing onto a petition if they wanted to keep debating? There would still be a pretty substantial amount of time to debate, but you wouldn't have bills languishing on the floor forever like the Fossil Fuels one has, as long as the VP's/Deputy President of Congress are on the ball. I don't think the details surrounding things like amendment votes would be too tough to iron out.

The VP administer House slots according to House rules I imagine. I read the House rules and there are different ways to speed up and terminate debate.
We can lift the minimum debate requirement with unanimity.
Two thirds of votes to pass cloture when debate lasted less than 7 days.
A simple majority after 7 days.
And a vote is not even required after 7 days of debate when there is no debate for 48 hours. 

Quote
3.) When legislation has been on the floor for more than 72 hours, any representatives may call for a vote on said legislation. The presiding officer shall open a vote if no other member of the House of Representatives objects within 24 hours of the call for a vote. The presiding officer may disregard an objection to a call for a vote if the objecting representative fails to provide an explanation containing atleast 30 characters. If the legislation has been on the floor for up to 168 hours, a two-thirds majority shall be needed to pass cloture. If the legislation has been on the floor for more than 168 hours, or debate has ceased for 24 hours, a simple majority shall be needed to pass cloture. The presiding officer shall then, at their sole discretion, either open votes on pending amendments followed by a final vote, or void pending amendments and move to an immediate final vote. If legislation has been on the floor for more than 168 hours and debate has ceased for at least 48 hours, a vote shall not be required to pass cloture.

There are already ways to cut debate. I prefer giving one week of debate before a majority can move  to a vote rather than the proposal of voting to have debate or not. At least it gives the chance for all to debate. The current rules can be used when there is a backlog or something is urgent, it gives flexibility, in other times can extend debate time. I think we can operate with warnings of not spending too much time on a particular bill so speak up early and avoid not being respectful and cut debate to move to a vote without cloture vote like the rules allow.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2021, 11:19:42 AM »

I am proposing an amendment.
I'm adding a condition. The expedited process would apply when there is more than one piece of legislation (bill, resolution, amendment) in the queue. If there isn't a queue the House has the time to examine and debate every bill. There is no need to avoid getting the legislation on the floor.

Quote
Section 3. Amendment to House Rules

1. Article 10 of the House of the Representatives Rules and Procedures for Operation is amended to read as follows.

Quote from: Article 10: Relationship within the Congress
...
5.) Whenever either house shall consider a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other and there is more than one piece of legislation in the queue, following a 48-hour period in which Congress may discuss, but not formally move to modify, the legislation, the President of the Congress shall immediately call a vote in that house on whether to immediately pass the legislation, or further debate it.
a.) Should the house vote to debate the legislation further, debate shall proceed in a separate thread as established elsewhere in these rules.
b.) These votes shall be known as "initial cloture" votes.

Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2021, 05:48:29 PM »

aye
If there are no bills coming from the Senate that are on the waiting list I see no reason to adopt Senate bills without being brought to the floor.

(I'm realizing maybe I was not clear, it's if there is more than one bill in the queue for the bills coming from the Senate and their five slots I believe).
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2021, 05:57:45 PM »

Would it change people's mind if I write:

"and there is more than one piece of legislation in the queue for the Senate passed legislation slots"

That is when the no debate vote could happen, because there are bills waiting. In other times we have time to properly debate. I forgot to add the queue was for Senate passed legislation because the sentence started with bills originated in the other house.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2021, 05:45:22 PM »

Quote
we don't need unnecessary stalling when there's plenty of debate to read through.

The usual complaint is there is not enough participation and debate. I guess now we prefer silence and quick votes.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2021, 06:20:28 PM »

I thought the stalling comment was on procedure in general but if it was on this specific bill, I have not seen stalling. If my amendments are considered stalling, it's insulting.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,519
Canada


« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2021, 09:13:23 PM »

Nay

If the House needs to move more quickly to debate legislation passed in the Senate the Speaker or VP or a concerned legislator can raise the problem so the House can take action. That is the voluntary collective effort option. There are also rules  like in Article 4 Section 3 of the House rules and procedures to cloture debate. That is a legislative rule option if needed. At least there is a minimum time of debate on the legislative floor. What this reform does is give people the power to not let a bill passed by the Senate be brought on the House floor. This can be done to the detriment of some Representatives who would like to debate or amend a piece of legislation. That is our role as legislators.

I believe if there are two legislative chambers a bill should be brought to the two legislative floors for examination and debate. I am for the liberty of debate and for the activity the debate brings. I find it anti-game to stop some legilsation from being on the floor. I proposed amendments to limit the scope of this new rule and they were rejected. I proposed getting to a final only when no House member objected, or when there was a queue for the slots reserved for Senate passed legislation. So I vote Nay because this reform goes against my vision of the game, the role of legislators and being fun for everyone.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 12 queries.