|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 16:05:41 GMT -5
Congressional Procedure ActSection 1(2) of the Congressional Procedure Act will be amended as follows:
(2) The minimum discussion period will be waived for votes related to states of emergency. In other cases in which a vote is time sensitive, the minimum discussion period may be waived by a joint decision of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker of the Regional Congress.
—original passage
(2) The minimum discussion period will be waived for votes related to states of emergency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2019 16:13:25 GMT -5
While discussion on a proposal is certainly important, there shouldn’t be legislation that mandates minimum days required prior to a proposal being brought to vote. If the author of a proposal feels that he has enough support for a proposal to pass, then he/she should be able to motion for a vote at his discretion; without having to wait three days.
In an effort to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of discussion on a proposal prior to it being brought to vote, I made sure to include a clause that allows the Speaker of the Regional Congress to delay a vote at his discretion until he/she feels there has been an adequate amount of discussion on a proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toerana on Jan 29, 2019 3:18:22 GMT -5
But requiring the Regional Congress to vote on expanding the discussion would most likely take more time then the discussion time allocated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 3:19:07 GMT -5
But requiring the Regional Congress to vote on expanding the discussion would most likely take more time then the discussion time allocated. What do you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by Toerana on Jan 29, 2019 3:22:20 GMT -5
While discussion on a proposal is certainly important, there shouldn’t be legislation that mandates minimum days required prior to a proposal being brought to vote. If the author of a proposal feels that he has enough support for a proposal to pass, then he/she should be able to motion for a vote at his discretion; without having to wait three days. In an effort to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of discussion on a proposal prior to it being brought to vote, I made sure to include a clause that allows the Speaker of the Regional Congress to delay a vote at his discretion until he/she feels there has been an adequate amount of discussion on a proposal. This section |
|
|
|
Post by bowzin on Jan 29, 2019 3:44:50 GMT -5
There should definitely be a minimum discussion period. It allows all citizens to voice any concerns they may have, allows all the kinks to be worked out, and creates a better bill.
Maybe the author thinks the bill is ready in 24 hours, and the speaker does as well, but they missed an important mistake that creates a dangerous situation. Another citizen notices it later, but the vote has already taken place. 3 days for the assurance of quality material is not something we should back away from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 8:14:20 GMT -5
There should definitely be a minimum discussion period. It allows all citizens to voice any concerns they may have, allows all the kinks to be worked out, and creates a better bill. Maybe the author thinks the bill is ready in 24 hours, and the speaker does as well, but they missed an important mistake that creates a dangerous situation. Another citizen notices it later, but the vote has already taken place. 3 days for the assurance of quality material is not something we should back away from. Using your logic, the same argument can be used for any and all legislation. As legislators, it is essential for us to be avid in analyzing legislation for mistakes prior to voting in either favor. If we do recognize and acknowledge mistakes in legislation after a proposal has been signed by the President of Pacifica and duly enacted into law thereafter, it is a Regional Congressional mandate to amend that law. While I certainly acknowledge your statement, I do not view it as a valid argument against as mistakes in legislation can be recognized well after the current three day minimum discussion period. An active citizen-legislator will take the appropriate measures to correct that mistake via authoring an amendment proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by lukatonia on Jan 29, 2019 8:58:52 GMT -5
The minimum discussion period gives the Congress more structure and regularity. This makes the Congress better and easier to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 9:03:11 GMT -5
The minimum discussion period gives the Congress more structure and regularity. This makes the Congress better and easier to follow. Would you go more in depth with your response, please? I don’t understand how a minimum discussion period pertains to the structure of the Congress, nor how it makes the Congress “easier to follow.” |
|
|
|
Post by Toerana on Jan 29, 2019 11:34:28 GMT -5
Luka has a point, the way it adds regularity is it helps people to not spend there life here, per se. It lets people structure there time here, with regular patterns of updates, voting and discussion. It also helps to ease people into the process, and let everyone have a chance to voice their opinion.
|
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370 
|
Post by Cormac on Jan 29, 2019 12:56:50 GMT -5
Maybe a compromise solution can be found in creating a process to expedite time sensitive legislation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 13:07:24 GMT -5
Maybe a compromise solution can be found in creating a process to expedite time sensitive legislation? Certainly, what do you suggest? |
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370
|
Post by Cormac on Jan 29, 2019 13:18:59 GMT -5
Maybe a compromise solution can be found in creating a process to expedite time sensitive legislation? Certainly, what do you suggest? Perhaps we could allow the minimum discussion period to be waived by joint decision of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker? The legislation could look something like this: |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 2:37:39 GMT -5
After speaking with multiple colleagues in the Regional Congress, and heeding to suggestions made in comments of this thread, I’ve decided to amend my proposal to provide for the amendment of Section 1(2) instead of Section 1(1). The current, edited proposal is the proposal that I look to see passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2019 2:38:02 GMT -5
I motion to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowzin on Jan 31, 2019 2:44:26 GMT -5
I second this motion to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by qwabourharbour on Jan 31, 2019 5:03:49 GMT -5
It hasn't been 3 days yet, silly
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 11:22:15 GMT -5
I motion to vote.
|
|
Cormac
Administrator
Posts: 370
|
Post by Cormac on Feb 3, 2019 10:06:31 GMT -5
Seconded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dino on Mar 11, 2019 21:56:51 GMT -5
The original poster of this resolution is no longer a Citizen. Should they return and wish to resurrect this resolution, they can do so by contacting me. However, only the original poster may request the resurrection. If someone else decides to adopt the resolution, they can repropose it in a new thread with the same or amended context as the orginial thread. With all of that in mind, I have decided to lock this thread and archive it.
|
|
