Two-thirds resolution (Passed)

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay with that?
[/quote]
No, I object.
Because 2/3 of sitting senator = 2/3 of senators and also it can be 2/3 of 10 and in this case we would have the same problem.

[Senator Cris]

What do you think of "two-thirds of the Senator (the number of Senators divided by 3, multiplied by 2 and rounded up)"

2/3 of 7 --> 7 divided by 3 = 2.33
                   2.33 multiplied by 2 = 4.66
                   rounded up = 5

2/3 of 10 --> 10 divided by 3 = 3.33
                     3.33 multiplied by 2 = 6.66
                     rounded up = 7

[Senator Cris]

Nay

[Senator Cris]

Amendment offered by Cranberry:

When the amendment is (1) approved by at least two-thirds of sitting Senators.

Original text:

When the amendement is (1) approved by at least two-thirds of Senators.

The only change is the word "sitting", but according to my interpretation 2/3 of sitting Senators = 2/3 of Senators.
I don't understand the use of the word "sitting", because if the Senators are 5, "sitting senators" are 5 and also simple "Senators" are 5.

Neither do it. The problem is not that 7 is two thirds of 10. The problem is, if there are just 9 senators, if it's still two thirds of ten (7) or just two thirds of nine (6).

AYE

In my interpretation, if there are 9 senators, it (2/3 of Senators) is two thirds of nine.

I hope that you understand

[Senator Cris]

Neither do it. The problem is not that 7 is two thirds of 10. The problem is, if there are just 9 senators, if it's still two thirds of ten (7) or just two thirds of nine (6).

AYE

Aye

"two thirds" is sufficient without specifying seat number IMO- 2/3 of a full Senate is already 7 because you can't have fractional Senators

Not in this case: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=205886.msg4452578#msg4452578

That's why I'm presenting this resolution and I'd like to add this:

What do you think of "two-thirds of the Senator (the number of Senators divided by 3, multiplied by 2 and rounded up)"

2/3 of 7 --> 7 divided by 3 = 2.33
                   2.33 multiplied by 2 = 4.66
                   rounded up = 5

2/3 of 10 --> 10 divided by 3 = 3.33
                     3.33 multiplied by 2 = 6.66
                     rounded up = 7

[Senator Cris]

Nothing against Cranberry, it's only that I don't understand the use of the word "sitting", considered that if the Senators will be 5, sitting Senators will be 5 and also Senators (without the word "sitting") will be 5.

[Senator Cris]

Sitting senators = senators currently holding office (I.E. vacancies are accounted for).

The phrase "sitting senators" explicitly clarifies two things:
1. vacant seats aren't counted when determining the number of votes required
2. Incumbent senators that don't vote are still counted when determining the number of votes required

"divided by three, times two, rounded up" is the functionally identical to "at least two-thirds"

Thank you for the clarification.
So, I'm changing my vote to Aye.
But despite this, when the amendment proposed by Cranberry will pass, I'd like to present this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

It's only for clarification.
For example: if we have 8 senators (2 vacancies for example), 2/3 is 5.3, and it should be rounded up to 6. It's a clear mechanism, but I think it's better clarify it for the future.

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

It's only for clarification.
For example: if we have 8 senators (2 vacancies for example), 2/3 is 5.3, and it should be rounded up to 6. It's a clear mechanism, but I think it's better clarify it for the future.

[Senator Cris]

I object.

I presented this resolution only for clarify things.
I think it's better having a clarification. What will change for 16 words?

[Senator Cris]

I'm ready.

[Senator Cris]

Aye