Talk Elections

Sponsor: Marokai Blue
Slot: 3

I support this.

Seems like a reasonable change.

I support this proposed amendment. The rights of the minority are important, but one Senator should not be able to single-handedly stall the debate of a bill (Besides, if a motion to table can't even gain two sponsors, what's the likelihood of it passing?).

I kind of go back and forth on it.  Yes, one Senator doing a motion to table can be annoying and slow down a bill.  One can argue it our version of the filibuster.  While that tactic was shamefully used in the era of civil rights and today, it was also used by Huey Long to champion the poor and Bernie Sanders to protest tax cuts.

I value parlimentary rules that allow for a lone principled dissenter to raise attention to his cause and fight to the very end.  It may be annoying, and it may be used against bills I care about, but I have to say it is important to me.

After all that, I think I will not support this amendment.

Okay guys, we've just had three motions to table introduced in under 16 hours... passing this would definitely be a good idea.

I'm pretty confident this will pass :P

I don't see this as a bad idea.

I would invoke unanimous consent, to move this along, but I suspect there's one Senator that wouldn't like that.

I'm certain mine would have been seconded very quickly, FTR.

Im with Junkie.

I bet that statement probably suprised some people.  Thank you for the support.  We need to preserve the right of "lone dissent."

If an idea  is bad enough to be worth tabling, finding a Senator to second the motion should be trivial. Lone dissent isn't being stopped; vote nay to your heart's content. But don't muck up Senate business by flinging out motions to table legislation for no other reason than you dislike it like a machine gun.

Two things.  I totally agree that motions to table should not be used just because you have a personality disagreement.  That being said, I do not agree that getting a second will be that easy.  What if there will a bill that I fundamentally thought was wrong, but the rest of the Senate just did not care or disagreed with me.  By being able to slow down the debate by a motion to table I take a stand.  We don't have the filibuster.  Sometimes voting nay is just not enough.

"What if there was something I fundamentally thought was wrong, but the rest...just did not care or disagreed with me."


hmmm, nope, wouldn't know what that is like at all.

The following bill has been up for debate for over three days and has seen no substantial debate for the last day or so, so I'm opening up a final vote on this resolution. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

---

Aye

Nay

Aye

aye

Nay

Aye

Currently at 5 - 2.

Nay. Sometimes we have to put up with nonesense, for a good reason.

As I'm now operating under the assumption there are 9 Senators, this resolution is currently passing.

I was thinking, that in order to truly protest the end of the lone dissent, I should have made a motion to table this.  Would have been interesting.

Ah, MArokai, when you are done insulting my intelligence on immigration policy in a place that doesn't exist here, perhaps you can close this vote that has been open eight days. :P ;D

I declared this passing yesterday. :P


And now, it has passed officially.

That doesn't "close" the vote, though. :P Since it wasn't even a call of 24 hours, it was basically just an official status report. Not that those aren't great to have ;D

Oh Yankee, stop holding a silly grudge against me because I pointed out your position on immigration is shortsighted. :P

Have you atleast read that post I mentioned so that you can make that judgement with information pulled from somewhere other than... :P

I would read it if you linked me to it!

"Who won the NBC Debate" thread, page 2, about midway through the page as a response to a post by Realistic. It has fallen to the top of the second page of the 2012 board.


Hyperlinks cost extra. :P