Provisional Parliament: Voting on Amendment

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'd advise amending the bill so that it's clear that a prospective prime minister should be able to command the confidence of the house.

I absolutely agree.

[Leinad]

I'd advise amending the bill so that it's clear that a prospective prime minister should be able to command the confidence of the house.

I absolutely agree.

I third this idea. But...we didn't finish voting on my amendment, right? It looks like 7 against, 2 for. I'm okay if it's not accepted (again, that's democracy) but it would be a rather confusing precedent to set if we have more than one amendments on the table, correct?

Down with "democracy".

You wouldn't say the same thing if the informal consensus had agreed "Sudamerica" was best, now would you? I won't be upset if "South America" is the name, as long as it comes after reasonable debate and a vote. It's the same logic of why it's incorrect to say that the Scottish Independence Referendum "failed," when actually, it succeeded: they voted, and went with what the majority thought was best.

Are you ever off?

Off what? Off my rocker? Some would say. Off the wall? Quite often. Off the charts? What charts? Off-broadway? Not really. (Nick) Offerman? No.

If you mean offline? Yeah, I am. But I have a habit of leaving the page open but going to do other things--i.e. I'm technically "online," but not actually actively on the site. Even if I was, it's rather off-topic (there's another one!), don't you think?

[Oakvale]

I actually just meant do you ever stop clutching your lapels

[Donerail]

Nay on the amendment.

[TNF]

No vote has been initiated so I don't know why everyone is posting Aye or Nay

[Foucaulf]

I had wanted to stay in my thread, but maybe I'll get more traction speaking in here.

My suggestion is a Head of State (a President?) elected by the Parliament with a 2/3 majority who serves a single consecutive term of 3 months. That way, you could have interesting dilemmas and the like if the Parliament failed to elect the President on time (such as an automatic dissolution procedure?)

As a fair warning, I'm unaware of any country that demands a supermajority in parliament to elect a president and has not entered a political crisis over it.

[Leinad]

I had wanted to stay in my thread, but maybe I'll get more traction speaking in here.

My suggestion is a Head of State (a President?) elected by the Parliament with a 2/3 majority who serves a single consecutive term of 3 months. That way, you could have interesting dilemmas and the like if the Parliament failed to elect the President on time (such as an automatic dissolution procedure?)

As a fair warning, I'm unaware of any country that demands a supermajority in parliament to elect a president and has not entered a political crisis over it.

That kind of makes it sound more fun, though.

I actually just meant do you ever stop clutching your lapels

My forte is not obscure phrases, so I must ask: what do you mean by that? I don't really wear lapels, nor would I clutch them if I did, so the literal answer is "no" (but I'm guessing you're question wasn't meant to be taken literally).

[TNF]

For the record, I will not open a vote on Leined's 'amendment' because the bill he is attempting to amend has already passed. If you want to amend it you need to introduce your name change as a new bill.

As the next person to post a bill was Potus, we will begin debate on that bill. Unless someone moves to end debate and proceed directly to a final vote, the twenty four hour debate rule is in effect.

[Хahar 🤔]

I think the most reasonable thing to do would be to appoint an interim head of state and let the elected Parliament pick a method of electing the head of state.

[Murica!]

I think the most reasonable thing to do would be to appoint an interim head of state and let the elected Parliament pick a method of electing the head of state.

I second this.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this better?

A new parliament could easily amend it, and I'm pretty sure we could elect a figure like Hashemite (as an example; I have no idea if he's interested) President with a 2/3 majority in the current Parliament.

[Barnes]

May I make a suggestion?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would also suggest specifying that the President appoints other members of the executive (the Cabinet, etc) on the advice of the PM.

[Blair]

Sorry to clutter this up, but what powers does the President have? It's always a mess, for example in the UK the Prime Minister in theory has 100% control over the Armed Forces. What's the situation with us?

[Leinad]

For the record, I will not open a vote on Leined's 'amendment' because the bill he is attempting to amend has already passed. If you want to amend it you need to introduce your name change as a new bill.

I don't see anything in our Rules of Order (written by yourself) that backs that up. However, you're the rightfully elected speaker, so I suppose I'll do what you suggested and propose the name change bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this, of course, is to be voted upon after Potus and Talleyrand's bills (that is, unless Potus's bill passes, in which case neither of our bills will get a chance to be voted upon).

[Leinad]

Regarding this bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Our job isn't finished. We still haven't came to a full democratic consensus on our name (we came close, though) nor have we said anything about the Presidential bill. The mission of this assembly is to set the main structure of the game, and we haven't yet done that. We've only voted on two things--two! The Provisional Parliament's work isn't done. We've been productive so far, but we need to continue our productivity. If we don't solidify these rules, the game itself will be chaotic.

Therefore I will be voting against this bill, and I encourage all my fellow members to vote against this bill along with me. Soon we will be able to get this mock parliament up and running, but we're clearly not yet at that point.

[TNF]

For the record, I will not open a vote on Leined's 'amendment' because the bill he is attempting to amend has already passed. If you want to amend it you need to introduce your name change as a new bill.

I don't see anything in our Rules of Order (written by yourself) that backs that up. However, you're the rightfully elected speaker, so I suppose I'll do what you suggested and propose the name change bill:

Common sense would dictate that you would have to amend a bill that has already passed with a new bill, I'm afraid.

[TNF]

I oppose ending the Provisional Parliament as of yet, at least until we can determine what to do about an executive. Therefore, I'll be voting against Potus' bill.

[Talleyrand]

May I make a suggestion?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would also suggest specifying that the President appoints other members of the executive (the Cabinet, etc) on the advice of the PM.

I'm fine with this, but I thought it'd be easier if the PM got to do the Cabinet on his own- makes the reshuffles and stuff a bit easier.

Sorry to clutter this up, but what powers does the President have? It's always a mess, for example in the UK the Prime Minister in theory has 100% control over the Armed Forces. What's the situation with us?

I think through convention you'd basically expect the President here to be a figurehead.

[PJ]

I oppose Bill 0-3. We need to deal with the other bills introduced before we dissolve parliament.

I'm in favor of the Presidency Act, but it's important that the president isn't anything more than a figurehead in practice. It would be easier for parliament to unite around a non-terrible candidate if it's just a symbolic position, and would make a political crisis less likely.

I oppose renaming the country Sudamerica out of personal preference, but practically speaking, virtually every party writing out their constitution and platform is using South America as the name of the country, so changing the name this late in the game would just be a headache without much benefit.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

We started a week ago. It is not late in the game. You guys are so boring.

[Leinad]

For the record, I will not open a vote on Leined's 'amendment' because the bill he is attempting to amend has already passed. If you want to amend it you need to introduce your name change as a new bill.

I don't see anything in our Rules of Order (written by yourself) that backs that up. However, you're the rightfully elected speaker, so I suppose I'll do what you suggested and propose the name change bill:

Common sense would dictate that you would have to amend a bill that has already passed with a new bill, I'm afraid.

Which is why I didn't protest it.

[Leinad]

I motion to end debate and take the vote on Potus's bill. It seems that the consensus is solidly against it, so I see no reason to keep the debate going when we can start debating the other two bills in the queue.

[Talleyrand]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another version of the act (now with an impeachment procedure).

Could we vote on this before Riley's bill if at all possible? I'd be fine with voting for his bill if we got the situation with the Head of State out of the way.

[Leinad]

Could we vote on this before Riley's bill if at all possible? I'd be fine with voting for his bill if we got the situation with the Head of State out of the way.

No, I'd much rather we didn't break the rules by going out of order. The only thing that would accomplish is allowing your bill to be voted on but not mine, correct? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't think of anything else that would compel us to go out of order on these bills.

[Potus]

Could we vote on this before Riley's bill if at all possible? I'd be fine with voting for his bill if we got the situation with the Head of State out of the way.

No, I'd much rather we didn't break the rules by going out of order. The only thing that would accomplish is allowing your bill to be voted on but not mine, correct? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't think of anything else that would compel us to go out of order on these bills.

I'm going to formally move that we suspend the rules to immediately vote on the Presidency Act and then return to the regular order of business.

TNF, I guess you'll have to agree to take this up?