Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 08, 2019, 06:38:32 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Northeast Assembly Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: Northeast Assembly Thread  (Read 329018 times)
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« on: September 28, 2009, 07:47:04 pm »

Sorry fellow Representatives, looks like I acted little to quickly this time Wink

Since Smid is running for the position I'll drop out and support him 

Nonsense! You were not at all too hasty. I think it would be poor form for democracy for you to drop out after playing such an active role in the establishment of the legislature. I would be happy to perform the duties of office if my fellow Representatives choose me, but I'm equally happy if we choose another candidate from our midst.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2009, 07:26:56 pm »

I think it best to refer to the rules by which the Speaker is chosen to be part of the Standing Orders. Examples of real standing orders can be seen here (plus numerous other locations). In each case, the election of Speaker is detailed in the Standing Orders (the Australian House of Reps one goes into the wording of motions and so on, very interesting and very precise):

-Australian House of Reps: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/index.htm
-Australian Senate: (not standing orders, but some of the rules of debate - has links to standing orders) http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/guides/briefno04.htm
-Victorian Leg. Assembly: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/assembly/standing_orders/2004-03/
-Queensland Leg Assembly: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/procedures.asp - click for Standing Orders. Other interesting documents also located there.
-British House of Commons: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmstords/2/2.pdf
-Canadian House of Commons: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/standingorders/toc-e.htm

As you can see from the examples, the rules are only binding on the House that passed them - so if at some time in the future, the Northeast had an Upper House/Regional Senate (not that I can see that happening), the rules/standing orders would not be binding on them.

Regarding the length of time open for debate and votes, and particularly the matter of urgency motions, I think it's important to keep the vote open for 24 hours. This is particularly the case for foreign members, as we are in different time zones.

In this sense, it's similar to Queensland Parliament's Standing Order 128 (found on page 39), which notes in point 8 that a Bill must be tabled for at least 13 calendar days after the introductory speech.

Note, however, that Standing Order 159 (page 44) allows for a majority of Members to vote that a Bill be considered urgent and therefore reduce the time requirments under SO128. This could be something we consider.

Although it has already passed, I'd like express my support for the Standing Orders relating to the election of Speaker.

I also accept the nomination for Speaker of our Assembly, and abstain from voting.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2009, 01:35:26 am »


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kwUt7awo


I've skimmed the Senate's complex rules regarding debate and voting procedures - the often-amended OSPR.   Yikes! 

I don't think a regional Assembly needs a Standing Order that is quite that complex.  In fact, I can't find any equivalent resolution passed by the Mideast Assembly.  Nevertheless, I think we should enact some sort of Standing Order on Assembly Procedure (SOAP), though - at a minimum, limiting the number of bills that can be on the floor at one time (1? 2? 3?), the order in which they shall be taken up (chronologically in the order proposed?  Lt. Governor's discretion?), and specifying a period for debate (72 hours?) and a voting period (24 hours?).   Otherwise, there may be chaos going forward.

I agree that we need a simple list of Standing Orders (SOAP). I would suggest we debate a single Bill at a time and for the order to be decided chronologically in the order proposed - perhaps having a separate thread for Bills drafted (and then debated in the order they appear in that thread). A Bill could perhaps be given urgency to be debated out of order (and with a shortened time period) by a simple majority vote on a motion to do so, something along the lines of:

Mover of the Bill: I move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended that would prevent the [Name of Bill] Bill receiving the consideration of the House.

Speaker/Lt Gov: All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No".

(voting accordingly. Vote ceases once a majority is attained or a majority have voted against, or 24 hours have elapsed).

Speaker/Lt Gov: I think the Ayes have it.

Mover of the Bill: I move that the [Name of Bill] Bill be read a second time (debate thus commences).
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2009, 07:25:47 pm »

Cinyc - exceptionally well done on these Standing Orders! Sensational work!

How about "invites the sponsor to move or moves if the sponsor is a concerned citizen or the Governor" rather than "introduces"? That leaves the Lt Gov in charge of ordering the introduction of Bills to the House, but leaves him/her bound by the SOAP - preventing them from potentially vetoing a Bill by refusing to introduce it?
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2009, 12:53:13 am »

Aye.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2009, 05:29:09 am »

The motion is that the Bill be considered.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." I think the Ayes have it.

The sponsor, Representative Hamilton, has the floor.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2009, 11:48:37 pm »

I rise to speak in favour of the Bill, and look forward to debating the foreshadowed amendments.

A comprehensive sexual education programme in high schools will no doubt reduce the prevalance of abortion in the Northeast. I believe that this is a worthwhile goal and that this Bill will establish such an education programme.

I believe that nothing in this Bill imposes a constraint on the religious practices of parents, nor students, however I recognise the right of parents to make that decision for themselves and if necessary, opt-out of classes taught at their child's school.

The teaching of contraceptives and safe sex practices will not merely reduce the teen pregnancy rate in the Northeast, but that when the current students are married or in a long-term committed relationship, they will have a thorough understanding of the means of preventing an unplanned pregnancy if they so choose. As young adult couples are represented in abortion statistics, in years ahead, this Bill will help to reduce not just teen abortion figures, but also the number of abortions sought by young adult couples.

Despite my support for the teaching of contraceptive and safe sex methods, I am particularly pleased that abstinence will still be encouraged of the students and that such encouragement will not be taught from a moral or religious perspective - as this is certainly a matter for parental instruction - but will rather be taught from a practical perspective as a certain means of preventing both pregnancy and STDs.

I commend this Bill to the House.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2009, 03:04:18 am »

I assume we're voting on amendments now, not debating amendments now?

Freedom of Conscience Amendment: Aye

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2: Aye

Motion to strike section A, subsection 2 and replace it with other words: Aye

Motion to amend Section B, with the insertion of subsection 6: Nay

Motion to amend Section B, subsection 5: Aye

Motion to remove Section D, subsection 4: Nay

Personally, I believe that Section D, subsection 4 should be included in whatever act presently legalises abortion, however in absense of an amending Act, I am satisfied with including it here. I would ideally like to see an Act to Amend both this Act and the Act legalising abortion to include this subsection in that Act and to remove it from this Act.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2009, 08:01:18 pm »

I am very concerned about the lack of a freedom of conscience section in the Bill, however I believe the curriculum should be introduced into schools as a matter of priority, pending any legal challenge. I therefore vote in favour of the Sexual Education Bill.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2009, 09:56:51 pm »

Aye (on debating amendments to the SOAP).
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2009, 06:44:51 pm »

Aye on all of the SOAP amendments.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2009, 07:16:16 pm »

The Question is:

That - the amendments to the SOAP be accepted. All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "No." The Ayes have it.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2009, 07:32:52 pm »

I have been reading through the SOAP and I am unsure whether we allow debate on the motion to over-ride the Governor's veto, or whether we merely vote to over-ride. As such, I believe the ordinary rules of procedure shall prevail, and am therefore allowing debate on the veto over-ride for a period of 24 hours. The Safe Sex Education Bill, as passed (and therefore as amended) is the Bill in question. Additional amendments to the Bill may not be moved as this would alter the Bill as vetoed. If amendments are moved and passed and incorporated into the Bill, the Bill would no longer be veto-proof and the Governor would still retain the right to veto. I am happy to hear debate on this ruling from the Chair, but I request that we limit debate to one comment per Representative. If I don't hear any opinions to the contrary on my ruling, I shall move debate on to the veto over-ride later today.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2009, 10:29:04 pm »

Nay.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2009, 02:32:29 am »


I refer the honourable gentleman to a statement that I made in my office: 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102893.msg2181176#msg2181176

I support the Bill and I support what it is trying to do, however I believe that it could be improved and I hope that the necessary amendments could be passed.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #15 on: October 15, 2009, 07:46:04 pm »

The Veto Over-ride vote passed.



The question is:

That - Debate on the Economic Recovery Tax Bill 2009 be now resumed.

All of that opinion say "Aye," to the contrary, "no," I believe the Ayes have it.

Debate is resumed.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2009, 12:30:49 am »

Aye.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2009, 12:59:17 am »

Yes, it still requires the Governor's signature. At least, that's how it typically works in real life, anyway.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2009, 05:43:15 pm »

Smid.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2009, 10:40:20 pm »

I mentioned to someone a couple of days back that I won't be running for Speaker in the next assembly, in order to give someone else the chance to perform the role.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2009, 11:20:31 pm »

I second the motion that the Bill be now put.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2009, 11:28:34 pm »

Aye.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2009, 10:46:45 pm »

Here's what I don't understand: why aren't we just fixing the number of Representatives at a number - 5 or 6 - instead of making things variable again?  Isn't it simpler to vote for a known number of seats?

It's simpler to calculate a set number of seats in advance. That said, I've been running the numbers in Excel for this. For the turnout range of V = 24 to V = 500 (so for virtually any turnout we'd expect, except in low-turnout races where fewer than 24 voters cast a ballot), the Quota will always be between five and six votes. I figured this would be the case because although my maths isn't great, we were putting the number of votes in both the numerator and the denominator of the formula to calculate the quota. It is perhaps, therefore simpler to amend this Amendment to read that the quota required to be elected shall be five votes. This will have virtually the same affect (in some races, it may elect an additional candidate because of strange preference flows and a large fraction of a vote left over) but won't change the competitive nature of the election substantially (while maintaining the benefit of simplifying the math involved in calculating the election results). If you're better than me at simplifying equations, the formula looks something like:

Q = (V/(n+1))+1
n = (V/5)+0.5

where: V = Number of Votes cast
            n = Number of Representatives elected
            Q = Quota required to be elected.

Substituting the formula for n into the first equation, we come up with

Q = ((V/((V/5)+0.5)+1))+1
or:

Q = (V/(0.2V) + 0.5) + 1

Anyway, it's not too hard to put the numbers into a spreadsheet and then graph the results... it only takes three columns.

The first column is V, the second column is n and the third column is Q. Obviously there's a header row to have each of those. In cell A2, you can enter "1" and in A3, etc, "2" (or "=A2+1" or just Fill Series). In cell B2, you can enter "=INT((A2/5)+0.5)" and you can copy and paste for all cells in column B. In cell C2, you can enter "=(A2/(B2+1))+1" and copy and paste for all cells in column C. You can chart the results if you wish.

For the last election, with 32 voters, we would have elected 6 representatives and each would have required 5.571429 votes to be elected. I could re-calculate the elections results, but I don't think we'd have any surprises.

Obviously all this ignores the "Maximum 10 Representatives" element of the Amendment, but by setting a fixed quota and ignoring this maximum, the size of the Assembly will grow slowly as the number of citizens increases (at a rate of one new representative for every five new voters) allowing us to continue holding competitive elections.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2009, 11:28:57 pm »

I think we should get rid of the "modified in January and July" element of the Bill and let the Legislature amend the Act at any time it sees the need, just like any other piece of legislation. If there's no need/support to change it, then it won't be changed and if there is a need/support for changes, then it should be changed regardless of what month it is.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2009, 12:45:57 am »

If Antonio doesn't accept the amendment as friendly, we'll move to a vote on the amendment.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC