Prepoll: Universal Bill Proposal

[Kloreep]

Otherwise known as The Bill To Let The FAM Propose His Own Darn Policy.

This amendment would change the following section of Article II: The Senate from (parts to be changed in bold):

2 Any Senator may propose a law.
(a) To propose a law, a senator must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

To (parts changed in bold):

2 Any citizen may propose a law.
(a) To propose a law, a citizen must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

Any comments/objections before I put this up for votes?

[adaMada]

Why don't we just add another clause?

I like the balance of power that the current system creates. We can solve the problem by adding in "Any Minister may propose a law that addresses one of the powers granted to their office". That way, we keep the balance as intended by NewCon, and yet make it so Ministers can propose the law themselves.

Personally, I think that it's not a bad thing to force one senator to agree to sign his name to a bill before the bill goes to vote -- but since I'm alone in this, I believe the above compromise is better than just striking the idea from the NewCon alltogether.

-- adaMada

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by adaMada
Why don't we just add another clause?

I like the balance of power that the current system creates. We can solve the problem by adding in "Any Minister may propose a law that addresses one of the powers granted to their office". That way, we keep the balance as intended by NewCon, and yet make it so Ministers can propose the law themselves.

Personally, I think that it's not a bad thing to force one senator to agree to sign his name to a bill before the bill goes to vote -- but since I'm alone in this, I believe the above compromise is better than just striking the idea from the NewCon alltogether.

-- adaMada

adaMada,

I agree with your thoughts in principle, which is why I followed through with the letter of the law on that w/o complaining about it at the time.

That said, however, the problem is not one of principle but of logistics. It already takes 3 days to approve of such a senate bill. Making the minister (in that case, myself) have to find a senator and get the senator to post it (and hoping that the senator posts its correctly w/o altering it) only served to add additional time and potential confusion to an already-long process.

As such, I agree with your suggested compromise. Allowing ministers to propose senate bills, but only on the issues where there are lines in the constitution that say that they must seek senate approval for some action that falls under their jurisdiction (which means only THEY would be able to propose it in the first place anyhow).

That's workable

[Kloreep]

Good suggestion. I'll add it in.

New version (addition in bold):

2 Any Senator may propose a law. Any Minister may propose a law that addresses one of the powers granted to their office.
(a) To propose a law, a senator (or minister under the conditions above) must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

[Arnelos]

Sounds good.

[E_T]

I like it.

E_T

[roadcage]

While this helps, it still does not address the problem of turnchats. I see no reason for turnchats to be considered sessions of the Senate Assembled. That way the administration can propose any plan that seems appropropriate as a unamamous consent request. If any Senator present objects, since it is almost certain that a quorum will not be present, the choices would be:

.) withdraw the proposal and continue the chat in accordance with outstanding orders and laws

.) stop the chat with the proposal immediately placed before the whole Senate

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by roadcage
While this helps, it still does not address the problem of turnchats.

Something that definitely needs to be addressed. But that's going to be more controversial, and I want to get this in ASAP (it's going to have to spend 7 days being voted on as it is ). Refinements for turnchats can always be added in a seperate amendment.

[WhiteBandit]

I think this may also be a good time to discuss what we should finally do with abstain.

I still take issue to the fact that "abstain is a vote but it doesn't count either way."

So we can get a bill passed that is 3 Yes, 1 No, 19 Abstain, which is definitely an issue.

I don't mean to derail this thread, but would this not be the perfect time to address this?

[roadcage]

Change the options to "yea', 'nay', and 'present'

[Meshelic]

I always considered a vote of abstain as "whatever everyone else wants". In my dictionary the word "avoid" comes up. So abstaining is really just avoiding to make a decision, and leaving it up to whoever votes yes or no.

So WhiteBandit, in your example of 3 Yes, 1 No, and 19 Abstain, every single person who voted Abstain basically felt that the decision was best left to the 4 people who DID cast a vote for yes or no.....

[adaMada]

Abstain, by NewCon, is a vote of "Present, counting towards Quorum, and allowing others to decide". This was debated heavily when NewCon was being passed, and I'm sure some people still disagree today.

Personally, I think this makes the most sense. Either way, I must ask that any discussion on this matter occur in a different thread, and be part of a different amendment. This amendment deals with one problem, and we should not bring another (and far more controversial) problem into it -- for clarity's sake if nothing else.

-- adaMada

[Kloreep]

Thank you, ada.

Since people seem to think this thread is too boring and uncontroversial, () I'll go ahead and post the poll now. I know this prepoll has only been up for a little while, but it's a simple change I doubt anyone will object to.

[Togas]

2 Any Senator may propose a law. Any Minister may propose a law that addresses one of the powers granted to their office.
(a) To propose a law, a senator (or minister under the conditions above) must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

But I would have also voted for it in it's original form.

--Togas

[Panzer32]

just change the freaking NewCon