Antillian Constitutional Convention
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 09:05:06 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Election and History Games
  Mock Parliament (Moderators: Hash, Dereich)
  Antillian Constitutional Convention
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Author Topic: Antillian Constitutional Convention  (Read 29344 times)
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: December 13, 2007, 08:03:52 PM »

Since no amendments were specifically proposed to the bills by members, but rather just members stating what they supported in debate. They made no attempt to propose revisions or amendments, ergo, those bills, in their original versions must stand as they were. Unless both men wish to withdraw them and they can be tabled, to make amendments. These bills stand as they are. Perhaps members should remember the procedure for proposing amendments to bills, and we let that serve as a lesson. For now, the bills stand as they were originially proposed.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: December 13, 2007, 09:14:45 PM »

Nay to both; and I believe we have not actually determined a system for amending proposals at this stage, nor do I think we should determine one.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: December 13, 2007, 09:31:45 PM »

Of the three methods I listed for making an MMP system viable, #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive, and #3 is needed only if neither of the other two are adopted.  I request that the vote therefore held only on proposal #1 at this time, with the other two to be considered only if the first fails to gain approval.

Was there some secret word I was supposed to say since apparently request was insufficient?

Besides in my original speech I said and as you quoted:

If we adopt an MMP system, we need to do one of the following:
1. Reduce the number of provincial MP's to 1.
2. Apportion the provincial MP's by population instead of a flat rate.
3. Increase the size of Parliment to more than 50 MP's.

Are we to take it that only proposal 1 is being voted on, or are we voting on all three at once with a second vote to be held after the first is concluded if it should pass in the affirmative to determine which of the three options is used?

In any case I will vote aye on both my motion and Mr. Tudor's for now as once you've bothered to explain what hoops you wish us to go through there will be ample opportunity to amend the proposals further.
Logged
The Man From G.O.P.
TJN2024
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: December 13, 2007, 10:36:59 PM »

Alright everyone calm down, I remove my motion if needed and give someone the opportunity (I have exams tomorrow) to write up a version of the PMQ idea in language they think would be acceptable to all of us, then we can vote on that.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: December 15, 2007, 06:29:22 PM »

We want clarification!  We want clarification!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  
« 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 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.