SR 108-14: No Rule of One Rules Package (Passed)

[Continential]

Aye

[Left Wing]

No

[Former President tack50]

Abstain

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

Nay

[Kuumo]

Nay

[beesley]

Nay

[West_Midlander]

Aye. Though I'm not entirely sure which would be better, I'd err on the side of not letting the PPT control this entirely. It's relatively easy to get 1/3 of the senators to support the PPT on something that might be crazy in this environment.

My understanding is that the 1/3 Senators requirement (currently 2/3 in this legislation) is only needed to overrule the PPT tossing out an amendment while there is no 1/3 or 2/3 requirement needed to allow the PPT to toss an amendment.

Ideally, this would never have to be used because the PPT (talking in an abstract, not about WD [as the current PPT] specifically) should conduct himself (talking in an abstract, not about WD [as the current PPT] specifically) in an upstanding way where he does not attempt to carry out the duties of his office in a political way that abuses the process but this is a concern because of recent actions (which have thankfully come to an end for now) by some individuals.

I fear that since historically PPTs have been elected on a party-line vote as with other things of import, any PPT elected by any majority could abuse the process, especially if the sweeping authority of the PPT is expanded as was passed into this legislation by requiring 2/3 Senators to object to tossing an amendment instead of 1/3. If all individuals conduct themselves in a proper way, this won't even be a common occurrence at all. All I am asking for is to return to the original requirement (1/3) under the Senate rules.

[Saint Milei]

aye

[Pericles]

Surely there already is an assumption that the PPT is carrying out their duties in good faith? I don't see what difference adding the words would make.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Surely there already is an assumption that the PPT is carrying out their duties in good faith? I don't see what difference adding the words would make.

The 2 minute votes was objectively NOT good-faith.

[Joseph Cao]

Aye. There’s no real way of enforcing “in good faith” unfortunately but that’s not an argument for striking it out.

[West_Midlander]

To clarify, "in good faith" is already in the bill. This amendment only seeks to lower the requirement to overrule a PPT on removing an amendment from the floor to what it was (1/3 Senators).

[Joseph Cao]

To clarify, "in good faith" is already in the bill. This amendment only seeks to lower the requirement to overrule a PPT on removing an amendment from the floor to what it was (1/3 Senators).

Oh, I know (and agree), just responding to the bit Pericles was talking about.

Last time I was online the original amendment had just been proposed and I hadn’t been able to comment on it anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[WD]

By a vote of 6-7-1-4, the amendment is rejected.

[WD]

Opening a final vote in 24 hours

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

Objection.

[WD]

Objection being raised, a vote on cloture is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

AYE

[beesley]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Abstain

[Joseph Cao]

Nay.

[Saint Milei]

Aye