Fix the Senate Rules Resolution (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:57:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Fix the Senate Rules Resolution (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Fix the Senate Rules Resolution (Passed)  (Read 2468 times)
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 09, 2014, 08:49:29 AM »
« edited: January 07, 2015, 08:44:09 AM by Senator bore »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article II of Senate rules shall be amended to read:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI shall be amended to read:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Windjammer
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2014, 12:32:16 PM »

Thank you Mr Speaker,
My dear senate colleagues, former President Averroes Nix, let me start by the points Ii believe won't be "problematic":
-this resolution would fix the problem that has happened not a long time ago: until the election of the speaker, the longest serving senator can just open the Speaker and PPT election threads. So until the election of the speaker, the senate would now be blocked. Allowing the longest serving senator to administer the bills until the election of the speaker, the senate wouldn't be blocked anymore.

- I believe hearings should last at least 3 days, and not a maximum of 3 days, because sometimes, 3 days aren't enough!


Now the controversial part of this resolution:
As Nix stated, both the VP and the PPT are pointless, not the persons but the offices. My goal is to give them a purpose:
I believe the  VP administering the constitutional amendments would be a good idea, because he couldn't break the tie on that. The PPT would second him if he's away. The senate administration would be split among 2 persons: the VP (constitutional amendments, confirmation thread) and the Speaker (regular bills, resolutions,...). Having administered alone the senate not a long time ago, Ii can assure this is better that 2 persons and not 1 administer the senate.
The VP and PPT offices wouldn't be pointless at all.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2014, 02:29:49 AM »

I appreciate the concern abotu "muddling the rules" but certainly after a 70% percent reduction in the size of the rules, we can afford to address some rather obvious concerns that have come up now that those new rules are in effect.

At that point it becomes valuing the reduction for the reduction itself and not the actual improvements that it will hopefully generate obviously. The inability to proceed immediately combined with several other things like the fewer number of slots together will increase the average queue backlog, something that has long been the consistent complain of both the sponsor and drafter of the rule package (by which I mean the new set of rules that went to effect a few weeks ago) going back a year.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2014, 12:30:02 PM »

I'm still not sure why the PPT is necessary at all. It's also worth pointing with the new rules running the senate isn't particularly onerous for me.

The way I look at it I much prefer to have a senator run the senate because that guarentees activity. We elect the speaker or PPT entirely based on past activity, we know Lumine, TNF Yankee and so on are not going to disappear and have been in the senate long enough to know how things work.

The VP is someone the president chooses normally to balance a ticket politically, they don't necessarily have any knowledge of how the senate works nor a past record of activity.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2014, 01:21:38 PM »

I'm still not sure why the PPT is necessary at all. It's also worth pointing with the new rules running the senate isn't particularly onerous for me.

The way I look at it I much prefer to have a senator run the senate because that guarentees activity. We elect the speaker or PPT entirely based on past activity, we know Lumine, TNF Yankee and so on are not going to disappear and have been in the senate long enough to know how things work.

The VP is someone the president chooses normally to balance a ticket politically, they don't necessarily have any knowledge of how the senate works nor a past record of activity.
The VP is the president of the senate. Right now, this office is pointless. I would like to end this situation and to give him something to do. I don't think letting him have the control of the constitutional amendments would be too difficult for him to handle.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2014, 01:38:23 PM »

I'm still not sure why the PPT is necessary at all. It's also worth pointing with the new rules running the senate isn't particularly onerous for me.

The way I look at it I much prefer to have a senator run the senate because that guarentees activity. We elect the speaker or PPT entirely based on past activity, we know Lumine, TNF Yankee and so on are not going to disappear and have been in the senate long enough to know how things work.

The VP is someone the president chooses normally to balance a ticket politically, they don't necessarily have any knowledge of how the senate works nor a past record of activity.
The VP is the president of the senate. Right now, this office is pointless. I would like to end this situation and to give him something to do. I don't think letting him have the control of the constitutional amendments would be too difficult for him to handle.
The most important function of the VP is to break ties.

The VP is president of the senate by virtue of the office, he's not chosen to be an effective senate administrator, just to appeal to the voters (although this normally works indirectly because voters aren't going to choose a VP who's completely inactive). It's by no means inconceivable a VP is elected simply because the president is really popular, or they have the right political opinions, or have done a good job as a governor or whatever. But it's perfectly possible for that VP to be unable to run the senate in all of those cases.

And yeah, running constitutional amendments is not difficult (hell, running the whole senate is not that difficult) but that doesn't mean that it would be done properly.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2014, 01:48:53 PM »

I'm still not sure why the PPT is necessary at all. It's also worth pointing with the new rules running the senate isn't particularly onerous for me.

The way I look at it I much prefer to have a senator run the senate because that guarentees activity. We elect the speaker or PPT entirely based on past activity, we know Lumine, TNF Yankee and so on are not going to disappear and have been in the senate long enough to know how things work.

The VP is someone the president chooses normally to balance a ticket politically, they don't necessarily have any knowledge of how the senate works nor a past record of activity.
The VP is the president of the senate. Right now, this office is pointless. I would like to end this situation and to give him something to do. I don't think letting him have the control of the constitutional amendments would be too difficult for him to handle.
The most important function of the VP is to break ties.

The VP is president of the senate by virtue of the office, he's not chosen to be an effective senate administrator, just to appeal to the voters (although this normally works indirectly because voters aren't going to choose a VP who's completely inactive). It's by no means inconceivable a VP is elected simply because the president is really popular, or they have the right political opinions, or have done a good job as a governor or whatever. But it's perfectly possible for that VP to be unable to run the senate in all of those cases.

And yeah, running constitutional amendments is not difficult (hell, running the whole senate is not that difficult) but that doesn't mean that it would be done properly.

So he has no duty.
I broke only 2 ties when I was VP, dallasfan too, Ttyrion only one, etc etc.

I would like to make this office active, because actually, they have no duty. If I fail, I will try to abolish this office.
I fail to see the point of an inactive office.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2014, 12:51:04 AM »

Absent giving the VP a steak in running the Senate at some level, I fail to see how the position does not end up being abolished or even worse, given full voting power in the Senate.

Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2014, 08:56:46 AM »

Absent giving the VP a steak in running the Senate at some level, I fail to see how the position does not end up being abolished or even worse, given full voting power in the Senate.



I was under the impression that before Marokai's term, the VP never ran the senate, is that right?
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2014, 12:41:26 PM »

Providing my own input into this discussion, the change with the most senior senator for starters is certainly sensible, and something I would support.
Going on to the PPT/VP/Speaker debate, I have to admit I like the current situation best. VP administrating appointments, Speaker the rest, with this change now most senior Senator until the Speaker is there - I guess this is quite a preferable situation.
Rather then abolishing the VP position, I would prefer if we gave that position something to do, but maybe something new. I would quite like it if maybe the VP would get the right to be in a way the executive's representative in the Senate, though not having a vote but the tie-breaking one, being able to sponsor bills and get the President's agenda through the Senate?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2014, 12:45:48 PM »

Providing my own input into this discussion, the change with the most senior senator for starters is certainly sensible, and something I would support.
Going on to the PPT/VP/Speaker debate, I have to admit I like the current situation best. VP administrating appointments, Speaker the rest, with this change now most senior Senator until the Speaker is there - I guess this is quite a preferable situation.
Rather then abolishing the VP position, I would prefer if we gave that position something to do, but maybe something new. I would quite like it if maybe the VP would get the right to be in a way the executive's representative in the Senate, though not having a vote but the tie-breaking one, being able to sponsor bills and get the President's agenda through the Senate?


Well,
My point with him administering the constitutional amendments is that he can't break the ties on that, so that was my intention Tongue.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2014, 12:57:56 PM »

I don't think that the VP needs more to do, but for the sake of argument I would like to point out a practical problem with putting him or her in charge of constitutional amendments: It's not always clear what is an amendment and what isn't.

We've had hybrid bills, like TNF's Civil Rights Act, the (first) Game Moderation Reform Amendment, and last summer's failed Pacific Rescue Amendment that include both amendment provisions and statute provisions. Who would administer these?

We've also had legislative proposals introduced as amendments, and vice versa. Debate sometimes demonstrates that a proposal is unconstitutional unless the constitution is amended. Conversely, debate sometimes shows that an amendment isn't necessary. How would the rules cope with these situations?

Oooops I'm sorry,
when I mean amendments, I mean constitutional amendments! Not amendments to regular bills.

And Ii don't understand the point with
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
For instance, the Term limit, which was introduced initially as a piece of legislation, would have been initially administered by the speaker, and after it renamed as an amendment by the VP? I mean, this situation happens really rarely, right? So I don't think it would completely destroy the senate organization!
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2014, 01:00:33 PM »

Oh I guess Nix was too speaking of constitutional amendments, Windjammer.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2014, 01:01:44 PM »

Well, so I'm sorry Tongue.
But I still think I have adressed your point Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2014, 10:02:38 PM »

Absent giving the VP a steak in running the Senate at some level, I fail to see how the position does not end up being abolished or even worse, given full voting power in the Senate.



I was under the impression that before Marokai's term, the VP never ran the senate, is that right?

Yes, and coincidentally the position was nearly abolished once and then almost turned into an eleventh Senator during that term as well. Getting the VP involved was something I envisioned doing with Kalwejt back in mid 2012 but Kalwejt ended up resigning after a short time. However, finally getting it going with Duke is what in my view saved the position from being significantly altered and to something I found rather undesirable at that.

Absent giving the VP a steak in running the Senate at some level, I fail to see how the position does not end up being abolished or even worse, given full voting power in the Senate.

How exactly would the Vice President go from not having a "steak" in the Senate (mmm?) to casting votes?

If the people hunger (Tongue) for an active VP, it will lead to another push to reform the position and we have seen both attempts at repeal and at making it an eleventh Senator before.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2014, 07:24:04 AM »

If you were going to give the VP control over some part of the senate (and I'm still not convinced that's desireable, for the reasons I gave above) you should give him control over say the first two slots, not over amendments as opposed to bills.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2014, 03:16:34 PM »

This is simple,
Or the VP final has a duty,
Or I will try to abolish this office

I'm sorry but I don't see the point of keeping an inactive office. Or this office becomes active, ot this office is abolished.

Bore, I would accept giving him slots 1 and 2. He would have something to do.

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2014, 02:37:08 AM »

A slot arrangement is probably the best one, but any is better than none.


I will fight abolishing the VP to the death by the way and I don't die that easy. Evil
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2014, 06:52:19 AM »

But is there really a need for a slot arrangement? Can't the speaker do his job alone just as good?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2014, 08:02:53 AM »

As I said I don't think that the VP being in control of the senate is great, for the reasons given above, so I'm going to propose an amendment
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article II of Senate rules shall be amended to read:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article VI shall be amended to read:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2014, 08:06:09 AM »

Hostile.

It appears I will have soon to introduce the abolition of the VP office
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2014, 12:31:46 PM »

I support bore's amendment
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2014, 01:54:22 PM »

Senators a vote is now open on bore's amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2014, 02:54:06 PM »

Honest question: what's the point of having both a Speaker and a PPT?

Also I'm down with abolishing the Vice Presidency

also aye on the amendment
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2014, 05:41:05 PM »

Nay
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 12 queries.