SENATE BILL: Queue Sanity OSPR Amendment (Passed)

[Talleyrand]

AYE.

Can we at least pass an amendment stating that bills sponsored by a former Senator will removed from the queue and have to be reintroduced by another Senator unless a cosponsor already exists to take up the bill?

[President Tyrion]

Nay

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

AYE.

Can we at least pass an amendment stating that bills sponsored by a former Senator will removed from the queue and have to be reintroduced by another Senator unless a cosponsor already exists to take up the bill?

That sounds like something I can support.
Also, I'm up for reducing "10" in this bill to a lower number if there is interest in that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We already do that.

Bills without a sponsor are barred from the floor and all X bills that have been taken over, were moved down to the bottom save for the Stingrays and that was because Talley had co-sponsored it at the time.


I think there might be something about Israel still in the list, but as far as the Senate is concerned it doesn't exist. I mistook it for something by TNF until a day or two ago and now I am looking into whether to take it or not. I will probably have it deleted by Monday, but it is not in the queue and I passed it over three or four times already.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 60:18 by Talleyrand:

Aye (1): Talleyrand
Nay (7): bore, Goldwater, Lumine, NC Yankee, shua, TNF and TyriontheImperialist
ABstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): DC al Fine
Vacant Seats (1): Mr. X

The amendment has been rejected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So we done here?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'll put forward this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
STatus: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[President Tyrion]

I object.

7 is too low. We had 39 pieces of legislation hit the floor in the 59th Senate, with an average of 9.5ish Senators at any given time. That's 4 pieces of legislation per Senator, give or take. Capping any given Senator at 7 is far too close to the average for my taste.

[TNF]

I also object shua's naked attempt to stifle legislation aimed at empowering the producers, rather than the grafting parasites that his legislation almost invariably supports.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why not just allow the almighty president to hand pick the legislation he feels is worth discussing? Sounds like a plan, no?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The administration has at no point suffered from lack of sufficient number of slots since at least the Marokai administration. The administration has invariably suffered from a lack of effective direction and utilization of available resources to bring agenda of said administration to the floor in the most speedy fashion possible since at least the Marokai administation. Former President "Miller" can take pride in the fact that his coordination was the least terrible in this regard.  

Before we further reduce the number of in order slots, I would point out that iti s the in order slots in conjunction with the clogging rule that will probably end up bailing out half of the President's agenda.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why not just allow the almighty president to hand pick the legislation he feels is worth discussing? Sounds like a plan, no?

You have four slots and in spite of my constant urging to you and to the Vice President about moving the Imperialism bill to the FP slot to free up theo ther executive one for education, for whatever, nothing in this regard has been done and the FP slot remains vacant whilst the Imperialism bill soaks up a more generalized executive slot and numerous other foreign policy pieces are in the queue that could be put in the FP slot.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Giving the PPT or the President direct control over more legislative slots would be an easier way of solving this problem than introducing more rules and quotas, wouldn't it?

It would be a mistake to give up in-order slots in this fashion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Objection filed by Senators TNF and Tyrion. A vote is now open on the above amendment, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

AYE

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Giving the PPT or the President direct control over more legislative slots would be an easier way of solving this problem than introducing more rules and quotas, wouldn't it?

It would be a mistake to give up in-order slots in this fashion.

Yet this bill is an indirect way of achieving exactly that. The only problem that it addresses is that a certain Senator has introduced more legislation than this Senate's majority coalition would like.

I thought you wanted to reduce the ability of incumbent Senators to clog up the queue?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Giving the PPT or the President direct control over more legislative slots would be an easier way of solving this problem than introducing more rules and quotas, wouldn't it?

It would be a mistake to give up in-order slots in this fashion.

Yet this bill is an indirect way of achieving exactly that. The only problem that it addresses is that a certain Senator has introduced more legislation than this Senate's majority coalition would like.

Not really though as I warned shua before I brought this bill onto the floor, you and your friends (or former friends it would seem) would likely try and make it so.

The in order slots provide an equal opportunity for access to the floor. This bill would just put a uniform cap on the number of bills each person can have carry over into the next Senate, it does nothing to erode the former principle.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Giving the PPT or the President direct control over more legislative slots would be an easier way of solving this problem than introducing more rules and quotas, wouldn't it?

It would be a mistake to give up in-order slots in this fashion.

Yet this bill is an indirect way of achieving exactly that. The only problem that it addresses is that a certain Senator has introduced more legislation than this Senate's majority coalition would like.

I thought you wanted to reduce the ability of incumbent Senators to clog up the queue?

I didn't label the Nix Era as an era of bait and switch reforming for nothing.

[Goldwater]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Giving the PPT or the President direct control over more legislative slots would be an easier way of solving this problem than introducing more rules and quotas, wouldn't it?

It would be a mistake to give up in-order slots in this fashion.

Yet this bill is an indirect way of achieving exactly that. The only problem that it addresses is that a certain Senator has introduced more legislation than this Senate's majority coalition would like.

I thought you wanted to reduce the ability of incumbent Senators to clog up the queue?

Yes, as long as we're trying to run the Senate in a neutral fashion and allow every member the same chance to have his or he legislation debated.

But this Senate rejected that premise and is pushing through with your original proposal, which doesn't achieve that at all. You might force TNF to hand some of his bills off to other Senators who will become sponsors in name only, but the only real effect of this will be to add yet another complication to the Senate's arcane rules.

Ah Nix, we haven't passed this bill yet, so I categorical reject you claiming that this Senate "rejected that premise" and cosnidering your history on the subject, you spinning this as such is not unanticipated, Nixy baby.

I didn't label the Nix Era as an era of bait and switch reforming for nothing.

You stated you wanted a partisan administration of the Senate last summer and spinning this as rejecting the premise of neutral/non-partisna administration, opens a very neat door to push that again. Has that desire of yours changed? I am glad you are now clamoring for administrative neutrality, if true though.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Giving the PPT or the President direct control over more legislative slots would be an easier way of solving this problem than introducing more rules and quotas, wouldn't it?

It would be a mistake to give up in-order slots in this fashion.

Yet this bill is an indirect way of achieving exactly that. The only problem that it addresses is that a certain Senator has introduced more legislation than this Senate's majority coalition would like.

I thought you wanted to reduce the ability of incumbent Senators to clog up the queue?

Yes, as long as we're trying to run the Senate in a neutral fashion and allow every member the same chance to have his or he legislation debated.

But this Senate rejected that premise and is pushing through with your original proposal, which doesn't achieve that at all. You might force TNF to hand some of his bills off to other Senators who will become sponsors in name only, but the only real effect of this will be to add yet another complication to the Senate's arcane rules.

Allowing every member to have their bills debated is exactly what I am aiming for.  Removing the roll-over of any bill into the next session does not do this as well as an individual cap because of the ability for a member to reintroduce all of their bills before other members can get out the gate, while those other members also lose their place in line at the same time.   What I am putting forward is not a perfect solution, but it's the best that I have come up with.   If a senator finds that something written by another senator is among their legislative priorities enough to take it over, then I can accept that as their prerogative.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I support open¹ partisan administration of the Senate, and have for over a year. This has never been a secret.

Yet that would require a complete revision of the rules, and this is only a minor change - and as long as a complete revision is not under discussion, my preferences are as I describe them in this thread. 

The rules for introducing legislation are complicated enough, and already include provisions for ignoring frivolous bills and anti-clogging rules for preventing a single Senator from monopolizing the floor. I can't imagine why we would want to add to this by effectively placing a cap on the number of ideas that a Senator is allowed to have in a single session.

This bill does not cap that.  A Senator could still introduce as many bills under this as they can now, it just gives other Senators more of a chance to have theirs brought to the floor.  We will still get to as many of each Senator's bills as time allows.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support open¹ partisan administration of the Senate, and have for over a year. This has never been a secret.

¹The PPT has enough discretion that the idea of the current system being "nonpartisan" is a fiction.

What the hell are you talking about?

It would only be fictional if someone came to hold the PPTship whose sole purpose was to abuse it in the most hackish way possible, but that it isn't the system causing the Senate to be that way. I was afraid bgwah would do just that at the time, but he didn't, at least not in any really noticeable way.

And interesting doctrine there though. So because something can be corrupted, it is thus corrupt. Interesting. And you take it one step further and call for legalizing the corruption.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is why I called it the era of bait and switch reform. Identify a real issue, exaggerate and embellish the situation to incorporate other aspects and thne propose a tangentially related reform that whilst not directly resolving the issue at hand, dose strike an item of off the partisan wish list.

The same approach was taking with the push for Judicial Term Limits last year.

Senate introduction is not complex at all Nix. You have to be a sitting Senator and you can only have three bills in a row before someone else's stuff gets brought up.

The slots are rather simple too. The in order slots follow the order of introduction by sitting Senators in accordance with said clogging rule. PPT, EXE FA/EM and FP are self explanatory and don't go in order.

I don't see where it is complex, more or less arcane (which implies it lacks purpose).

You really think think a caucus strucutre would be lacking in complexity, or less arcane from the perspective of a third partier or Independent? I had hoped that you having one foot in a third party yourself would bring some perspective on the matter, Mr. Miller.