Windjammer-Yankee Override, Redraft, Tabling, Expulsion and Introduction PPT...

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator North Carolina Yankee

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This changes some more lingering out dated references and clarifies how the rules apply to redraft votes, which came on the second to last redraft where there was uncertainty regarding the vote length. This also shortens that length from the traditional five to three.

[PPT Spiral]

These are sensible changes. I'll be voting in support of this. I don't think that this will yield much controversy, so let's get a final vote going pretty soon.

[Dr. Cynic]

Fine with me.

[Lumine]

I support this as well, specially reducing the voting time on redrafts to three days.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A final vote can be opened in fourteen hours or so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Time is up but we could throw some more stuff into this if that is desired?

[Lumine]

Time is up but we could throw some more stuff into this if that is desired?

We could, but I don't see the redraft section as having any problems or issues beyond the ones that this bill seeks to address. We are probably going to need to change the rules regarding the PPT election to avoid another Supreme Court case on the issue, but this bill is already fairly self explanatory and I can't many many Senators voting against it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was actually thinking of the sponsorship assumtion references and the incorrect reference at the end of the clauses that Windjammer posted in relationship to both instances of sponsorship change.

[windjammer]

After some careful considerations,
I would like to completely replace PPT by President of the Senate in Article 3 section 1 as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Will this work?

[windjammer]

Perfect,
Senators, you have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about the sponsorship assumption cross referrence that is off by one in the clause number?

[windjammer]

What about the sponsorship assumption cross referrence that is off by one in the clause number?

Could you be clearer???

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=193000.msg4256375#msg4256375

It should refer to clause seven, not eight. THis is because they got slid up during a consolidation amendment passed earlier this year.

[windjammer]

Aaaaaaaaah I understand now .

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Should I compose a subsequent amendment on the matter?

[windjammer]

Should I compose a subsequent amendment on the matter?

As you wisssssssssssssh.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Shall I consider the previous amendment withdrawn?

[TNF]

Perhaps it's just time to re-write the entirety of Senate rules and procedure.

[windjammer]

Perhaps it's just time to re-write the entirety of Senate rules and procedure.

Indeed, it's time to get the full powers to the VP for the rules. And really

[DemPGH]

One of the things that gets people really frustrated is blanket naysaying when it comes to any and all reform, no matter how minor or necessary the reform is, like the SoFE being in charge of amendments.

Yes, the damn rules need to be rewritten to not hem the VP in so much and to account for the issues that have been coming up recently. "Oh, we can't do that" or, "Well if we do that then this, this, and this." I don't care, we can agree to a rewrite that will improve what currently exists.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Shall I consider the previous amendment withdrawn?

I missed this before I went off.

I would have said yes, but the previous amendment is an hour away from passage. Rather it best to just handle them as seperate amendments at this stage. You technically could go ahead and call 24 hours on the second on, since they don't contradict each other.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One of the things that gets people really frustrated is blanket naysaying when it comes to any and all reform, no matter how minor or necessary the reform is, like the SoFE being in charge of amendments.

Dear Edward, I know of not a single person in this game that is a blanket naysayer against any and all reform. People have varying views about a lot of reforms. I was fully willing to go in with PR with Adam and the boys, 70% of Atlasia is a blanket nay sayer on PR though. I have composed every OSPR amendment Windjammer has asked for, introduced it for him and then voted for it. I don't know who was the blanket naysayer on that, must be the invisible man.

Assembling strawman to paint people has being hostile to all reforms because they disagree with one on one or two out of a dozen, isn't helpful either.

Yes, the damn rules need to be rewritten to not hem the VP in so much and to account for the issues that have been coming up recently. "Oh, we can't do that" or, "Well if we do that then this, this, and this." I don't care, we can agree to a rewrite that will improve what currently exists.

Such can be a convenient disguise to critique the fact that amending the OSPR takes so long piecemeal. Name one massive comprehensive project that has passed since the CSS in 2011 and I might be willing to concede the feasibility of such.

No one is opposing reforming the OSPR. We have passed several consensus OSPR amendments that attracted little to no opposition over the past ten months. Most of them together have finally brought to full integration the Fritz amendment of 2010 that put the VP back over the PPT. This one is 90% focused on that. Nothing in this amendment will change what is presently being done or how, it just fixes text issues. The real change in this regard was made back in 2010, though no one began to notice until 2013 (thanks to Duke and you, and now Windjammer). I realize Windjammer is uncomfortable by virtue of his strict interpretative nature regarding utilizing powers that say "PPT shall", but like I said, those are latent incorrect references and the power endowed at the top of the document should be sufficient to invoke those same clauses as well. And this amendment should just about finish them off.

Now there are instances where the VP is limited because he is not a Senator. The rules state a requirement for a Senator to motion for a vote first. The general rule has been to defer to the sponsor, as he is best judge of when it is finished. There is a conflict of interest argument considering the VP might have to arbitrate the timing of a final vote motion in relation to the debate rules and whether or not a final vote can be opened if it is in dispute (think a potential filibuster). Right now the VP is best for such a role, but if given the ability to motion for votes, it is something that needs to be considered. There is also a benefit in requiring some other than the presiding officer make the motion, though the long history of PPT's using vote openings a defacto motion has obscured that (a practice I tried to stop as much as possible).

Other than that where is he being hemmed in with regards to Presiding over the Senate? He has far more power to preside over the Senate, then any other Senate official does.