S.19.3-24: Chamber of Delegates Voting Clarity Amendment (Passed)

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Chamber of Delegates Voting Clarity Amendment

To provide greater clarity around what defines a passed and failed vote and how to handle a tie.
The following amendments to the Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates.

Section VI: Voting
1.) A vote passes or fails if it has a majority of votes in the chamber.

2.1.) Votes on legislation shall last for a maximum of 2 days (i.e. 48 hours).

3.2.) When a piece of legislation has enough votes to pass or fail, the office in control of the legislative slot shall announce that he or she will close the vote in 16 hours and that any Delegate who wishes to change his or her vote must do so during that interval. If all delegates have voted, the vote may be closed immediately.

4.3.) If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the Governor, the bill's sponsor may request an override of the veto within 3 days, i.e. 72 hours, of the veto taking place. The Speaker may extend this period if the bill's sponsor is on a publicly-declared leave of absence.

5.4.) For the purposes of overriding vetoes, any Delegate who abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote against overriding the veto.

6) In the event of a tie, a tie breaking vote can occur after a motion to tiebreak has been put forward by a delegate. A tiebreak vote will last no longer than 24 hours. If the vote is still tied the governor casts the deciding vote.

Sponsor: Delegate Muaddib

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Fellow Delegates, I have put forward this amendment to the Standing Rules of the Chamber to provide greater clarity should the chamber find itself in future facing another tie. I believe this Bill provides the clarity required to handle tied votes moving forward. I look forward to debating this issue with all y'all.

[Saint Milei]

Ties happen for two reasons:
1. A person abstains
2. A person misses the vote.


Why not have two different responses? Response 1 can be the governor casts the tie vote which will effectively kill or sign the bill into law (this is part of the reason I wanted a Lieutenant Governor). If it's an amendment, we can just bring it straight to the people after a tie and let them decide. Response 2 can be we wait an additional 24 hours for the last vote to be cast or at least vote on it

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

I believe this will also come in handy from the tied vote thread:

The final vote was 3-3, and the question is what is the procedure for breaking a tie.

The standing orders don't provide guidance on this.

which leads to the next question "is a tie, a failed vote?"
If the answer is yes then it is a failed vote.
However, once again the standing orders also don't provide guidance on this either.

Considering this seems to be a new occurrence. I believe that the following should be considered and debated.

Options for Tied Votes
1. Another vote. (24 hours, long)
2. Have the Governor act as the Tie breaking vote.
3. Use Option 1 then if there is a second tie use Option 2.
4. Ties are considered failed votes.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

If it's an amendment, we can just bring it straight to the people after a tie and let them decide.

A tie can't happen on an amendment, as constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds majority.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Ties happen for two reasons:
1. A person abstains
2. A person misses the vote.


Why not have two different responses? Response 1 can be the governor casts the tie vote which will effectively kill or sign the bill into law (this is part of the reason I wanted a Lieutenant Governor). If it's an amendment, we can just bring it straight to the people after a tie and let them decide. Response 2 can be we wait an additional 24 hours for the last vote to be cast or at least vote on it

What are your thoughts on the proposed amendment to the Standing rules?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

This bill would function in a similar way to how the UK and Australia handle ties. Where the governor would basically have the role of the speaker in these instances:

Tied votes
If the vote is tied - which is very unusual - in the Commons the Speaker has the casting vote. The Speaker casts his vote according to what was done in similar circumstances in the past. Where possible the issue should remain open for further discussion and no final decision should be made by a casting vote.

In the Lords, the Lord Speaker does not have a casting vote. Instead, the tied vote is resolved according to established rules (called the Standing Orders).

Tied votes
In the House of Representatives, the Speaker does not vote unless the result is a tie, in which case the Speaker has the casting vote to decide the matter. In contrast, the President of the Senate may always vote along with other senators. This provision was included in the Constitution to ensure that all states have equal representation when votes are taken in the Senate. If there is a tied vote in the Senate, the question is resolved in the negative (lost), because a majority vote has not been reached.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There already is precedent over how to act in these kinds of cases. The bill fails.
It's not terribly common but it's happened before and this is how I always handled things as Speaker.
I struggle to conceive of a reason this amendment is even necessary, to be honest.

[fhtagn]

There already is precedent over how to act in these kinds of cases. The bill fails.
It's not terribly common but it's happened before and this is how I always handled things as Speaker.
I struggle to conceive of a reason this amendment is even necessary, to be honest.

Then you handled things in a way that wasn't in line with the standing rules.

Even Congress has an established method of resolving ties. There is nothing wrong with establishing a clear method of resolving these situations, even if uncommon. Claiming the amendment is unnecessary is just wrong and silly.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There already is precedent over how to act in these kinds of cases. The bill fails.
It's not terribly common but it's happened before and this is how I always handled things as Speaker.
I struggle to conceive of a reason this amendment is even necessary, to be honest.

Then you handled things in a way that wasn't in line with the standing rules.

Even Congress has an established method of resolving ties. There is nothing wrong with establishing a clear method of resolving these situations, even if uncommon. Claiming the amendment is unnecessary is just wrong and silly.

Your former point is utter tosh, especially since the rules themselves didn't specify precisely what was to be done. It was up to the discretion of the Speaker. That is an arrangement that worked well enough, and both me then and Muaddib now were more than qualified enough to adopt a fair policy on ties.

Your latter point isn't necessarily wrong or incorrect, and it's rather kinda fair.
However I don't support the idea of the governor being tie-breaker.
I'm not opposed to the idea of entrenching option 4 (as Muaddib put forth) in the rules themselves.

[fhtagn]

There already is precedent over how to act in these kinds of cases. The bill fails.
It's not terribly common but it's happened before and this is how I always handled things as Speaker.
I struggle to conceive of a reason this amendment is even necessary, to be honest.

Then you handled things in a way that wasn't in line with the standing rules.

Even Congress has an established method of resolving ties. There is nothing wrong with establishing a clear method of resolving these situations, even if uncommon. Claiming the amendment is unnecessary is just wrong and silly.

Your former point is utter tosh, especially since the rules themselves didn't specify precisely what was to be done. It was up to the discretion of the Speaker. That is an arrangement that worked well enough, and both me then and Muaddib now were more than qualified enough to adopt a fair policy on ties.

Your latter point isn't necessarily wrong or incorrect, and it's rather kinda fair.
However I don't support the idea of the governor being tie-breaker.
I'm not opposed to the idea of entrenching option 4 (as Muaddib put forth) in the rules themselves.

To use an example used elsewhere in the game, Congress uses someone from the executive branch as a tie breaker. Do you oppose the idea of the VP breaking ties in Congress?

Also worth noting that the rules don't specifically say that the handling of a tied vote is up to the discretion of the speaker. It says nothing about tied votes at all, which is why an amendment clarifying how ties are handled is necessary. It sets a very bad precedent to let the handling of these situations change depending on who the speaker is, rather than a clear set of rules dictating how it should be handled.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There already is precedent over how to act in these kinds of cases. The bill fails.
It's not terribly common but it's happened before and this is how I always handled things as Speaker.
I struggle to conceive of a reason this amendment is even necessary, to be honest.

Then you handled things in a way that wasn't in line with the standing rules.

Even Congress has an established method of resolving ties. There is nothing wrong with establishing a clear method of resolving these situations, even if uncommon. Claiming the amendment is unnecessary is just wrong and silly.

Your former point is utter tosh, especially since the rules themselves didn't specify precisely what was to be done. It was up to the discretion of the Speaker. That is an arrangement that worked well enough, and both me then and Muaddib now were more than qualified enough to adopt a fair policy on ties.

Your latter point isn't necessarily wrong or incorrect, and it's rather kinda fair.
However I don't support the idea of the governor being tie-breaker.
I'm not opposed to the idea of entrenching option 4 (as Muaddib put forth) in the rules themselves.

To use an example used elsewhere in the game, Congress uses someone from the executive branch as a tie breaker. Do you oppose the idea of the VP breaking ties in Congress?

Also worth noting that the rules don't specifically say that the handling of a tied vote is up to the discretion of the speaker. It says nothing about tied votes at all, which is why an amendment clarifying how ties are handled is necessary. It sets a very bad precedent to let the handling of these situations change depending on who the speaker is, rather than a clear set of rules dictating how it should be handled.

What the rules state elsewhere attests to the power invested in the Speakership, and it's silly to go from "the rules don't state exactly what happens here" to "the Speaker is violating the rules for adopting a policy covering a grey area". That's literally part of the Speaker's job. Following best practice and, if possible, precedent to make sure things run smoothly.
I'm not really against the idea of stating precisely what happens in case of a tie, nor vocally in favor. And you raise some decent arguments insofar as to meriting this. But the text as it is right now it's far from optimal. And this isn't really an emergency thing either. I trust Muaddib to be even-handed and fair in this and other areas if there is no such rule change, and if there is one as well.

[Saint Milei]

Ties happen for two reasons:
1. A person abstains
2. A person misses the vote.


Why not have two different responses? Response 1 can be the governor casts the tie vote which will effectively kill or sign the bill into law (this is part of the reason I wanted a Lieutenant Governor). If it's an amendment, we can just bring it straight to the people after a tie and let them decide. Response 2 can be we wait an additional 24 hours for the last vote to be cast or at least vote on it

What are your thoughts on the proposed amendment to the Standing rules?

That works for me.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

There already is precedent over how to act in these kinds of cases. The bill fails.
It's not terribly common but it's happened before and this is how I always handled things as Speaker.
I struggle to conceive of a reason this amendment is even necessary, to be honest.

Was it ever any protest brought up over there being a tied vote?

Regardless, there is a lack of clarity within the standing rules as to what happens in the event of a tie.
The whole point of this bill is to provide clarity.

[reagente]

I'm partial to the idea that a tie vote kills the bill.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

I would like to hear what Delegates Elcaspar, TSA & John Henry Eden have to say.

[Elcaspar]

I agree with Delegate Reagante, i am more supportive of the idea that a tie kills the bill.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

As there at least appears to be consensus on how a tie should be handled.

I propose the following amendment to the bill:

Chamber of Delegates Voting Clarity Amendment

To provide greater clarity around what defines a passed and failed vote and how to handle a tie.
The following amendments to the Standing Rules of the Southern Chamber of Delegates.

Section VI: Voting
1.) A vote passes only if it has a majority of votes, excluding abstentions and absent (not voting)votes. Or unless stated otherwise in the standing rules.

2.1.) Votes on legislation shall last for a maximum of 2 days (i.e. 48 hours).

3.2.) When a piece of legislation has enough votes to pass or fail, the office in control of the legislative slot shall announce that he or she will close the vote in 16 hours and that any Delegate who wishes to change his or her vote must do so during that interval. If all delegates have voted, the vote may be closed immediately.

4.3.) If a piece of legislation is vetoed by the Governor, the bill's sponsor may request an override of the veto within 3 days, i.e. 72 hours, of the veto taking place. The Speaker may extend this period if the bill's sponsor is on a publicly-declared leave of absence.

5.4.) For the purposes of overriding vetoes, any Delegate who abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote against overriding the veto.

This is consistent with how the deputy Speaker has handled things in the past (when Speaker) and how I handled the tie at the time:

Voting has closed.

Bill fails.

(I'll fix up the details when I am home properly and not about to rush out the door)

The entire aim of this bill is to formalize the result concerning tied votes.

If there are no objections the above amendment will be the working version of the bill.

[reagente]

a majority of votes, excluding abstentions and no votes?

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

a majority of votes, excluding abstentions and no votes?

Yes I have adjusted the amendment and will reset the time for objections from this post.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No objection.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

As there have been no objections to the amendment. I motion for a final vote.

[Saint Milei]

second

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Final vote. 48 hours.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Aye