1st Parliament of South America

[Murica!]

I strongly suggest starting to do something here.

[Murica!]

I third moving forward on nominations for speaker.

[Murica!]

I nominate Sibboleth for speaker.

[Murica!]

aye

[Murica!]

I refuse to comment on the constitution as I will be forced by the Party bureaucracy to vote a certain way regardless of my opinions.

[Murica!]

Nay on both amendments.

[Murica!]

aye.

[Murica!]

I note that Mr. Theodore Cranberry has been elected as the Parliamentary Leader of the Socialist Party and, in accordance with my ruling on Wednesday, is duly recognized as the Leader of the Opposition.

However, considering that Mr. Cranberry is not at the present a Member of Parliament, he may not participate in any debates or activities within the House.  While Mr. Cranberry remains outside of the House, I would ask the Socialist grouping within the House to designate to me a Member to serve on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition within the House.

Would it not be easier to replace Crabcake with Cranberry?

[Murica!]

As a matter of information, nothing prevents a Member from resigning their place at any time.

But what if said member is inactive?

[Murica!]

Nay

[Murica!]

Mr. Speaker, it seems we once again need your judgement.

With the defection of Murica, MP, to the Worker's Party, we have again reached a situation with no available precedent. The question being poised now is obviously whether the seat currently occupied by Mr. Murica can be considered as a personal or as a party mandate, whether Mr. Murica can keep it as member of the Worker's Party, or whether the seat was being vacated by him the moment he left the Socialist Party, and is now up to be filled by the next ranking member (that is Mr. Hifly).

In name of the Opposition of this parliament, I speak in our opinion that the latter is the case. Voters clearly voted for a party, and not an individual candidate - thus, in order to best represent the voters will, mandates should be considered as belonging to the political party or list, and not the individual gaining it through participation in said list. This view is, in my opinion, further supported by the judgement in the previous case regarding Mrs. Crabcake's seat, when it was supported by both government and opposition that the seat belonged to the party, and the party had a right to expel a member from parliamentary representation and fill the vacant seat with the next member on the party list.

Than what point is it to have people as MPs? If parties control the seats than the members of parliament are useless, and you may as well just let Parties have a certain number of votes rather than seats in parliament.

[Murica!]

Aye.

[Murica!]

Nay

[Murica!]

Nay!

[Murica!]

Nay

[Murica!]

Division No. 13 -- Called October 12, 2015, at 4.48 pm.
Question -- That the bill be read a third time.

Ayes -- 7
oakvale
Goldwater
Talleyrand
Simfan34
Cranberry
Al
Vega

Noes -- 2
Turkisblau
Murica

Motion agreed to.

Members not in attendance: Potus, Dereich, Cassius, Spamage, Nhoj, ChairmanSanchez, PJ, Xahar, Sjoyce, Blair, and TNF

This was less than half of all members in attendance, I motion for a revote.

[Murica!]

The Parliament has not established a number for a quorum for a vote, and so any division that is passed by a majority of Members voting (unless there is a special requirement such as the election of the President) is completely valid.

If you look at most parliamentary bodies, you will find that the level of attendance for most divisions is usually much lower than the full membership of the whole chamber.

I fully understand that, but am I not able to motion for a revote?

[Murica!]

Nay!