(Moved to Vote)Amendment Bill: Repairing legislative procedure

[Muizer]

Okay, the following principle was voted into the constitution once before. It got lost somehow during the re-draft following Imb's purchase of TWC. The undesirable effects can be seen in several proposal threads, but the "open the Curia to all" one is the most obvious.

New is the deletion of the delay clause. It has been misinterpreted in the past to mean a debate is "active" as long as the opposition keeps posting, even when proposer and supporters have indicated they are determined to bring the proposal to a vote without further changes. The opposition is allotted the 3 days debate after the final draft has been posted to convince the electorate to vote "no". We could make it longer, but that's the function it has. Not to stall the debate in hopes of frustrating the legislative process.


Patrician Support: Ozymandias, Mimirswell, Shaun
Citizen Support: Enoch
Proposed by: Muizer

Any Citizens may post table a bill for discussion by opening a thread in the Prothalamos. This Citizen will remain the sole proposer for this thread.

Bills can take two forms.

• Amendments - A proposal to alter the text of the Constitution. Amendments can alter or remove existing text and add entirely new text.
• Decisions - A proposal for the creation of an official Decision of the Curia on a topic relevant to the functioning of TWC. The Curia has authority to direct the Officers of TWC in this way on any topic of which the primary say has been delegated from the Officers, who shall take such Curia Decisions under strong advisement. The Speaker of the House shall determine if proposed Decisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Curia.

Each version of the bill requires named support from two Patricians and two Citizens and. The final draft of the bill must be debated for at least three days in the Prothalamos before the proposer can request the bill be moved to vote. If, after three days the debate is still active, the Curator may delay moving the bill to vote after one month. A delay of longer than a month is at the Curators discretion only upon at least two Patricians and two Citizens requesting more time for debate.

[Tom Paine]

I support this strongly. Filibustering is not good, peeps.

[enoch]

I myself wondered about the vaguries of the "take to vote" procedure.
This would make such wondering unnecessary, and give me more time to cause trouble.....support.

[Muizer]

odd, there must be a hiatus in the constitution. What went before "two patricians and two citizens"? Something like "both bills require the named support of....."?

[Perikles]

odd, there must be a hiatus in the constitution. What went before "two patricians and two citizens"? Something like "both bills require the named support of....."?

I think something got confused when this bill passed:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=91918

[Shaun]

Support.

[Muizer]

right, put the missing piece back in

[the Black Prince]

do not support.... why should a bill get moved to vote when debate is ongoing... this prevents people with new, better ideas, bringing them into the bill just because the proposer wants to rush his piece through

[Mímirswell]

Support.

[Shaun]

do not support.... why should a bill get moved to vote when debate is ongoing... this prevents people with new, better ideas, bringing them into the bill just because the proposer wants to rush his piece through

But hopefully after three days, the people who have these 'new and better' ideas will have hopefully given them. This amendment will stop bills simply getting forgotten about, and I think its best that they are voted on whilst they are still a hot topic.

Plus, if someone comes out with a better idea once voting is ongoing or finished, they can always propose an amendment themselves!

Oh, and by the way Muizer, you can list me under Patrician support now. Thanks.

[Muizer]

do not support.... why should a bill get moved to vote when debate is ongoing... this prevents people with new, better ideas, bringing them into the bill just because the proposer wants to rush his piece through

Tell me, if the proposer and supporters of this bill stick with this proposal, how does the present legislation enable you to bring those "new and better" ideas into the bill?

Oh, and by the way Muizer, you can list me under Patrician support now. Thanks.

Forgive me sire!

[the Black Prince]

by debate


Shaun, i'd really rather bills WEREN'T voted on while they are a hot topic. i'd rather people had a chance to step back from the despatch box, cool down, and view the bill more objectively/dispassionately before they cast a vote on it.

[Shaun]

Shaun, i'd really rather bills WEREN'T voted on while they are a hot topic. i'd rather people had a chance to step back from the despatch box, cool down, and view the bill more objectively/dispassionately before they cast a vote on it.

Yes, and as Ozy says, this creates a filibuster. I am sure they can vote on it rationally whilst its still being debated, not that much is debated for more than three days, mind you.

[Tom Paine]

Have you heard of the filibuster, tBP? That is precisely what this creates - a legislative filibuster. Usable at will. It is untenable to allow it to continue while we say we have a logical system.

[enoch]

how about increase it to 5 or 7 days
or 10?

I like 7 for every reason.

aesthetically pleasing, a week, holy number by virtue et. al., overall sex appeal, and amount of time between shroom adventures for yours truly

[Tom Paine]

aaaand.... any of that bears any relation why?

[the Black Prince]

well, i quite like the idea of a filibuster, personally... though i'd be hard pressed to see how this creates one... afterall, its pretty impossible to debate with myself

a vote can only be delayed if a debate is ongoing, a debate requires at least 2 or more posters to be replying to each other. thats not a filibuster. i can't stop a bill going to vote just by posting, someone else who has the opposite view of the bill has to respond to the comments i've made. then i'd have to respond to them, and so on. Thats a debate, and while people are still talking about the bill i see no reason to put it to a vote until such debate has ended.

the only people who acting alone can prevent a bill going to vote are council officers, by provisional veto.

[Tom Paine]

Or those who organise with another member a fictional debate, for instance a devil's advocate opponent. Its a pretty simple method.

I might add that your idea advocates that proposers should simply stop debating after three days - that gets them the best result. But this is not a logical system to use - it sharply curtails debate for no logical reason.

[the Black Prince]

well, in many cases, people have complained that the debate goes round in circles and never gets anywhere... yet the same people also keep on themselves making the same points over and over.... giving their opposition the opportunity to do the same. If one side, to put it bluntly, made their case, repeated themselves maybe twice, realised the circular nature of the debate and simply shut up, the problem would be solved.

[Tom Paine]

So, yes, the best thing to do for the supporters is in fact shut up after three days no matter what the opponents say.