Post Archive

Region: The Thaecian Senate

History

Election Act passes 3-0-1-1

Amendments pass 4-0-0-1

Brototh

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1917016

Were debating this now.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Actias

New Central Iowa[/spoiler]

Brototh

Yeah sure works for me

Cool author, not sure about sponsor tho

The Ambis

Riveting stuff y’all, let’s vote. 24 hours.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1917016

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Toerana V

Obalostan

Actias

New Central Iowa[/spoiler]

10 day vote here we come

oh and sure yeah works for me +1 vote for

The Ambis

Tada. Done.

Passed, 3-0-0-2 Brototh

Debating this:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1717482

See no issue with these changes

Actually, strike that, we’re debating this now: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1767138

Please note that all of Marvs bills are (for now) no longer valid. Docket will be updated to reflect this

Guys I’m hilarious, we’re debating this now lol

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1910852

I have no issues with this bill

Chairman Ambis you are a silly doofus.

Anyways, bill looks good to me.

Obalostan wrote:Chairman Ambis you are a silly doofus.

Anyways, bill looks good to me.

Why’d you ping chairman me?

The Ambis wrote:Why’d you ping chairman me?

I just typed @ ambis and clicked on one 😅

so sure yeah this works for me why not

Ok let’s vote.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1910852

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Actias

New Central Iowa[/spoiler]

Aren’t I funny. Bill passes Andusre.

New stuff soon

Two points of buisness.

1) Actias is relieved of his deputy chair position. Toerana V will be taking that place.

2) We are now debating https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1717482 which I will sponsor.

[spoiler=Senator]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Actias

New Central Iowa[/spoiler]

I'm not deeply opposed to the recall blocker on fail, but I do think it is too long as the section, as such I am proposing an amendment to swap 28 days out for 14.

I am deeply opposed to doubling the length a Chamber Leader is immune to removal.

As such, I am also proposing an amendment to remove that amendment from the bill.

I intend to vote against the bill in its current form. I recognise I haven't written text versions of the amendment, because I am on my phone at the moment, but do believe, as they are one word changes, the chair knows what I mean and can make that clear in the vote stage. I can write literal text versions though if wanted.

Regardless of whether the amendments pass, I can't say giving an elected official recall vote immunity is necessary at this stage, given no elected official of an applicable nature under this system has ever been the subject of a successful petition. The one time we got close a court injunction, that I am still salty about, got in the way. Amusing this amendment is by the subject of that petition though, I'm sure that's a coincidence.

My sponsor is Bow; I am writing the proposed amendments on his behalf as author (he is the credited author; see CR 009)

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amends VI.I.VI,

Sub-section VI - If a majority votes to keep the incumbent official in office in a recall referendum, no recall petition may be presented against such individual for the next 28 14 days.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]Removes amendments to VI.II.II; retains recall time at 28 days as status quo.[/spoiler]

Toerana V, The Ambis

Voting on below amendments

[spoiler=Amendment A]Amends VI.I.VI,

Sub-section VI - If a majority votes to keep the incumbent official in office in a recall referendum, no recall petition may be presented against such individual for the next 28 14 days.

[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Amendment B]Removes amendments to VI.II.II; retains recall time at 28 days as status quo.[/spoiler]

Amendments pass 3-0-0-2

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1922291

Here’s the amended bill. We are now voting on it.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Actias

New Central Iowa[/spoiler]

I hereby inaugurate Creckelenney and Lesbia to the Senate

Lesbia, Chairman Ambis

Post self-deleted by Brototh.

Sma Cyrillic wrote:I hereby inaugurate Creckelenney and Lesbia to the Senate

Here’s y’all’s Ping to vote on the above bill

The bill has passed, 4-0-1-2, Brototh

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1919758

Debate over this has started

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia

Actias[/spoiler]

Brototh

For this bill, seems like reasonable amendments

Brototh

personally, i will be abstaining

Creckelenney

I do hereby declare the above bill passed, 4-0-0-3. Actias, I will note this is your third consecutive missed vote.

New business will be up soon

Alright new business! We are now debating https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1918407 as amended by the senate.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia

Actias[/spoiler]

I meant house, by the way

so I obviously prefer 14 to 21 but I'm not going to try and turn this into a back and forth. 21 days is too long for me to be comfortable with, however, and with the amendment seeking to fix what is currently not an issue, nor something that has absolutely ever been an issue, I am going to vote against this amendment and encourage other Senators to do so as well.

The Ambis

I agree with Bow here

Vote closed.

The bill has failed 0-4-0-3.

We will debate more soon!

Sorry!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1908150

Debating this now!

[spoiler=Senator]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Actias

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Yeah sensible change +1

The Ambis

Aye, as shadow chairperson of the senate I can confirm it's unessecary

Toerana V, The Ambis

Let’s vote then!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1908150

As a reminder, Actias has been recalled, so no longer needs to vote.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

New Central Iowa

Creckelenney

Lesbia[/spoiler]

The bill passes Taralania, 5-0-0-1.

Lesbia, this is your third time not voting. Please vote next time.

New business soon

We really gotta define soon

Toerana V wrote:We really gotta define soon

So true.

Alright, lets debate.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1908147

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Toerana V

Makes sense to me. I'm for.

yes, more flexibility is always good

Seems logical to agree with this.

Alright senators. We are now voting on Amendments to L.R. 60

Please vote with an aye, nay, or abstain.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Thank you all for voting so quickly! Amendments to L.R.060 pass the Senate by a margin of 5-0-0-1. Lesbia failed to vote.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We will now be debating Amendments to L.R.039

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Streamlines and removes unnecessary language from L.R.039

yup fine with that

We will now be voting on Amendments to L.R.039

Please vote with an aye, nay, abstain, or the equivalents.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Amendments to L.R.039 pass the Senate by a vote of 5-0-0-1

Lesbia failed to vote.

There will be new business soon

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

Alright, we are now debating Amendments to L.R.58

Please debate and all that.

[spoiler=Senators]

The Ambis

Obalostan

Toerana V

Creckelenney

New Central Iowa

Lesbia[/spoiler]

I’m for these amendments and see no harm in them

Yeah, looks good to me, the old rule of 4 was a bit limiting

Post self-deleted by Lesbia.

I've already explained why this change is ridiculous. Here's my post.

Brototh wrote:I object to the motion because there is no large political party demanding an additional character.

Four characters covers all mainstream movements and even the region's smaller movements too like PTD. While adding additional protections in the law is always a good thing this is a chance for the sake of change and does not provide any significant benefit whatsoever.

Additionally the line has to be drawn somewhere on character limits. As soon as one person asks for 5 characters do we just let that happen? What happens when someone asks for 6? Or 7? Will we consider that too far? So why is 5 any better considering only 4 has been needed over 4 years?

The preamble to this bill only says parties "may" wish to choose longer than four. Well they may wish to choose 6, 7, 8, 9. But we aren't going there because that's obviously silly to have "Brototh [ABCDEFGHI]" on the ballot. The line has to be drawn somewhere and increasing it here means we have to increase it for everything. Simply increasing the limit to 5 may not cause ridiculous ballots or harm the region but it does open the door to ridiculous change since the line has to be drawn somewhere and opening the door to the line being moved just because people "may" want more than 4 - and I can't even see any parties who ACTUALLY want this - is not a good reason to have change.

Obalostan

I can very much see where Brototh is coming from here. I don't see why this change is necessary and 5 characters to represent a party doesn't seem right when majority of parties (NS and IRL) are happy with 3, maybe 4 characters.

Brototh

I sit in the "who does this hurt?" camp. Acronyms of up to 5 characters aren't gonna break anything, why not give movements a little bit more freedom.

I see the argument of "where should we draw the line" but I don't find it compelling enough to vote against this bill

New Central Iowa

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.