Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Franzl]

Aye: 4
Nay: 1

I'm not counting Marokai's vote....don't think I'm allowed to now that he's no longer a senator.

Two more votes in favor are necessary for passage.

Basis?

In theory, I'd argue that, considering the total number of senators determines how many votes in favor are required for passage, that it would be impossible to count the vote of someone who no longer belongs to the body.

Of course it could also be argued that the number of senators when the vote begins is relevant, I guess....

[Alexander Hamilton]

Aye: 4
Nay: 1

I'm not counting Marokai's vote....don't think I'm allowed to now that he's no longer a senator.

Two more votes in favor are necessary for passage.

Basis?

In theory, I'd argue that, considering the total number of senators determines how many votes in favor are required for passage, that it would be impossible to count the vote of someone who no longer belongs to the body.

Of course it could also be argued that the number of senators when the vote begins is relevant, I guess....

Not really. No votes are final until the PPT declares it so. Marokai is unable to change his vote, being a non-Senator. If Marokai is to have his vote be counted differently (unable to change) that is a conflict.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've read through the rules a bit, and no where do they state what to do with the votes of senators that have resigned or otherwise left office.

This here is the procedure for handling the votes of senators whose terms have expired and been replaced by someone else.

This passage leads me to believe that my original decision in this matter was incorrect, and to provide precedence for similar situations in the future, and to be consistent in applying the rules of the Senate, I will count Marokai's vote.


Aye: 6
Nay: 2

Two-thirds of senators having voted in the affirmative, this Constitutional amendment has enough votes to pass.

Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[afleitch]

Nay for the record.

This was one of the most...'odd' constitutional bills put before the Senate. The text of the bill has changed a few times and none has addressed what is to be gained by having 5 regional seats not only elected differently (which can be argued) but also with a difference in qualification

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

There is nothing to stop regions setting a ludicrously high, discriminatory or undemocratic bar on qualification. I am not assuming that any regions will...but theres nothing to stop them doing so.

[Purple State]

Nay for the record.

This was one of the most...'odd' constitutional bills put before the Senate. The text of the bill has changed a few times and none has addressed what is to be gained by having 5 regional seats not only elected differently (which can be argued) but also with a difference in qualification

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

There is nothing to stop regions setting a ludicrously high, discriminatory or undemocratic bar on qualification. I am not assuming that any regions will...but theres nothing to stop them doing so.

Along this line, the Pacific or Southeast could easily have the votes to set a party requirement for their regional senators.

[afleitch]

Nay for the record.

This was one of the most...'odd' constitutional bills put before the Senate. The text of the bill has changed a few times and none has addressed what is to be gained by having 5 regional seats not only elected differently (which can be argued) but also with a difference in qualification

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

There is nothing to stop regions setting a ludicrously high, discriminatory or undemocratic bar on qualification. I am not assuming that any regions will...but theres nothing to stop them doing so.

Along this line, the Pacific or Southeast could easily have the votes to set a party requirement for their regional senators.

Precisely.

The debate in this bill turned into a 'tit for tat' match between two factions playing the 'regional rights' card. This bill had nothing to do with that at all and I'm genuinely suprised that it passed as it was written. This bill has the potential to disrupt the democratic process.

As written it is a dangerous bill because of the potential that it can be used for partisan purposes to 'lock' out voters that the supermajority don't wish to represent them. DWTL's objections demanding a high threshold in regions was actually pretty reasonable given these concerns.

[MaxQue]

Nay for the record.

This was one of the most...'odd' constitutional bills put before the Senate. The text of the bill has changed a few times and none has addressed what is to be gained by having 5 regional seats not only elected differently (which can be argued) but also with a difference in qualification

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

There is nothing to stop regions setting a ludicrously high, discriminatory or undemocratic bar on qualification. I am not assuming that any regions will...but theres nothing to stop them doing so.

Along this line, the Pacific or Southeast could easily have the votes to set a party requirement for their regional senators.

I'll vote such a thing in Pacific and Southeast doesn't have the votes to do it.

[Franzl]

This amendment has passed. I request that the governors open a vote as soon as possible in their regions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fwiw, CheeseWhiz v Senate of Atlasia means that this Amendment has not passed.

[Franzl]

Fwiw, CheeseWhiz v Senate of Atlasia means that this Amendment has not passed.

I would have to disagree there, unless I just overlooked something important in the ruling.

We clearly only have 8 senators currently in office....but that's still a majority of what the Senate should be.

And 6 of those 8 senators voted in favor of passage.

A quorum was present....

What am I missing?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fwiw, CheeseWhiz v Senate of Atlasia means that this Amendment has not passed.

I would have to disagree there, unless I just overlooked something important in the ruling.

We clearly only have 8 senators currently in office....but that's still a majority of what the Senate should be.

And 6 of those 8 senators voted in favor of passage.

A quorum was present....

What am I missing?

Ah, I didn't know that there were only eight Senators at present - if that's true, ignore what I wrote (unless the ruling was even worse than I remember). Though I note five votes in favour (IIRC the new Justice's vote doesn't count because of CheeseWhiz v Atlasia. Again, might have remembered the details wrong. Six in favour if I've remembered right) and three against.

[Franzl]

Fwiw, CheeseWhiz v Senate of Atlasia means that this Amendment has not passed.

I would have to disagree there, unless I just overlooked something important in the ruling.

We clearly only have 8 senators currently in office....but that's still a majority of what the Senate should be.

And 6 of those 8 senators voted in favor of passage.

A quorum was present....

What am I missing?

Ah, I didn't know that there were only eight Senators at present - if that's true, ignore what I wrote (unless the ruling was even worse than I remember). Though I note five votes in favour (IIRC the new Justice's vote doesn't count because of CheeseWhiz v Atlasia. Again, might have remembered the details wrong. Six in favour if I've remembered right) and three against.

Yeah, there are 8 senators now...and 6 voted in favor