RPP December Christmas/Holiday Ball (Voting on Dissolution)

[Junkie]

At-large Senate:

X 20RP12
X Write in: Teddy (if he is running)

[/quote]

[Junkie]

Aye

[Junkie]

I say vote now.

[Junkie]

Teddy and Bgwah,

If you want someone to blame, blame me.  I have been a big pusher of a vote to dissolve but must admit that I have contributed nothing to getting it move forward.  The holidays and work took me out of things for a little bit and when I returned, I really sank into Senate with the time I have available.

I will admit that the by-laws make me tired, and is partly another reason why I have not done much.  I was hoping that I encourage the vote and when it happened vote the way I thought right.  Yankee has done everything in his ability to make the process happen, while at the same time, making sure it is done right.

I am sorry that I failed to step up and will work on that soon.  Those outside the party that favor a vote on dissolution by the two parties, should be thanking not atacking Yank.  Whatever his personal feelings, he has made it a possibility and shown true leadership on the issue.

So I will say it again, you want to attack someone, attack me.  After work today, I will get on it.  Sorry I did not do it earlier, but with limited time, I have been spending it on the government page.

[Junkie]

Here we go:


1. I, Junkie, move that the RPP hereby dissolve.

2. This dissolution motion is conditioned on the subsequent or prior passage of a similar dissolution by all other Atlasian parties with 12 or more members. This dissolution motion is thus only effective once those other specified parties have likewise reciprocated

--------------

Asking for four people to second the motion.

[Junkie]

Aye

[Junkie]

In order to be passed, this motion must fulfill the following conditions:

a. The vote will last for exactly 1 week (=until Friday, January 27) and must require the approval of majority of RPPers voting.
b. The vote must receive a minimum quorum of 50% of membership as it stands at the commencement of the vote (=20 members out of a total of 39 members).
c. All RPPers may vote who have attained membership prior to 48 hours before the vote commences.

Here is how I see it:

sub (a) puts passing at a majority of those that voted, while sub (b) sets the number of voters needed to establish a quorum for a valid vote.  I do not believe that (b) dictates that the number of votes be 50% of membership.

This is important as it means, in my opinion, that those that abstain count for purposes of the quorum AND count for purposes of the majority.  If it had just said "majority" then they would not count.  Thus every abstain is the same as a "nay."  By the way, this is not as bad as what we had for our union recertification vote in Wisconsin.  Not only did abstaining count as a no, but so did not voting, as we had to get to a majority of all eligible voters.

However, I would point out that there appears to be legal precedent in Atlasia for a different view that "abstain" does not count for purposes of the majority count.  Two that come to mind are the Senate and I believe the Midwest has a statute on point.  The problem being that the bylaws are unclear on the matter, so legally it is a toss up.

I would prefer that they not count and if I were running the election, I would not count them, but consider the enormity of the vote, I can see where the other view may be the more prudent one.

Meant to weigh in earlier, but am involved in a number of union, family and work things that are minimizing my time on this forum.  Will get better in a week.

I know this