Two-thirds resolution (Passed)

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Cris

[windjammer]

I currently disagree with the proposal.
I mean, if there are 9 senators, I believe only 6 senators should be needed.

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Okay with that?

[windjammer]

Definitely

[bore]

While we're doing this can I make a suggestion to improve another part of the senate rules, namely to make the tabling bit more efficient, so it doesn't take days to do so:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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

[bore]

A vote is now open on Cranberry's amendment, please vote aye nay or abstain

[Senator Cris]

Nay

[Bacon King]

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

[windjammer]

Aye. I dont understand you, Cris .

[Cranberry]

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

[windjammer]

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

2/3 of the sitting senators, so 6.

[Cranberry]

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).

2/3 of the sitting senators, so 6.

If that version is passed, yes. With the current line in place, not so much.

[TNF]

Aye

[windjammer]

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).

2/3 of the sitting senators, so 6.

If that version is passed, yes. With the current line in place, not so much.

Oh yes, of course .

[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.

[Bacon King]

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"

[windjammer]

Well, that's probably the first time it's not me who has a problem with barrier language .

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[bore]

Aye


Cranberry's amendment has enough votes to pass, senators have 24 hours to change their votes

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

Well, that's probably the first time it's not me who has a problem with barrier language .

We seem to have increased the percentage of ferreners in this chamber.