Rules of the Senate

[Gustaf]

What happens if the number of regsitered voters is tied, at some point?

[Gustaf]

What happens if the number of regsitered voters is tied, at some point?

Good point. Do you have any ideas?

Well...at some point we should flip a coin. Or something like that. There has to be a way where it cannot be tied. Now, if you can think of a way to electronically flip a coin, then by all means...

[Gustaf]

What happens if the number of regsitered voters is tied, at some point?

Good point. Do you have any ideas?

Well...at some point we should flip a coin. Or something like that. There has to be a way where it cannot be tied. Now, if you can think of a way to electronically flip a coin, then by all means...

Perhaps I will make it so that, if two parties are tied at the point the new Senators take office, then the situation prior to their becoming tied will be taken into account. Two individuals cannot have become registered at the same time, so this is bound to break the tie.

So you mean the voter who registered most recently will not be counted? That could work, I guess, but makes little sense...couldn't it be that the least active voter, in terms of last post would be discarded?

[Gustaf]

What happens if the number of regsitered voters is tied, at some point?

Good point. Do you have any ideas?

Well...at some point we should flip a coin. Or something like that. There has to be a way where it cannot be tied. Now, if you can think of a way to electronically flip a coin, then by all means...

Perhaps I will make it so that, if two parties are tied at the point the new Senators take office, then the situation prior to their becoming tied will be taken into account. Two individuals cannot have become registered at the same time, so this is bound to break the tie.

So you mean the voter who registered most recently will not be counted? That could work, I guess, but makes little sense...couldn't it be that the least active voter, in terms of last post would be discarded?

How about disregarding those who did not vote at the previous election, and then, lastly, the one who is least active?

Deal! That seems like a good idea.

[Gustaf]

There should be a set time following a nomination for "hearings", a period of time, not exceeding one week, during which senators may ask questions in a specified thread, and during which the nominee may answer, but the nominee is not obligated to answer questions. Hearings may be held before a vacancy is actually available if it is known that a vacancy will imminently become available. In case of a vacancy on the Supreme Court while there is no confirmed replacement, the Forum Moderator will cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. Nominees shall be confirmed by a simple majority. But if the President has nominated at least four candidates, and ten days have passed while there is an unfilled vacancy, the threshold shall be lowered to a plurality.

Any Senator may move to close debate beginning two days after the start of hearings, and the procedure shall be the same for cloture. But at any time, debate may be closed with the vote of five Senators.

I think this procedure gives too much power to the President and takes away from the Senate. I think nominees should be confirmed on a specific motion, rather than being chosen from among a group of individuals (as the real Senate does). Additionally, there being a 10-day limit on debate, hearings could be held at the same time.

I also think it would be unconstitutional for the Forum Moderator to be given a vote.

Nah, more power to the forum moderator sounds like an excellent idea...

Seriously, the forum moderator should not be given any powers within the fantasy politics. He is outside the fantasy political system, he isn't even mentioned in the constitution. Which is probably a good idea. In fact, my supreme authority comes directly from God himself, that is Dave..........hmmmm....does that sound just a little bit crazy?