|
Post by Bymaria on Nov 25, 2017 18:19:15 GMT
Recently in Parliament we have encountered the issue of how an abstention should be counted. Does a majority mean of the entire House or simply of those who voted? If each of our justices could give feedback on this matter it would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Nov 25, 2017 18:49:51 GMT
Recently in Parliament we have encountered the issue of how an abstention should be counted. Does a majority mean of the entire House or simply of those who voted? If each of our justices could give feedback on this matter it would be much appreciated. I would say that it should be a majority of those who voted. We should have ways to encourage full participation of the House though IMO.
|
|
|
Post by pontustan on Nov 25, 2017 19:02:13 GMT
I agree with Barbaros
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Nov 25, 2017 20:45:16 GMT
I agree with Barbaros, however, I hold that we should require a quorum of members to be present in order to conduct business.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Nov 26, 2017 3:13:39 GMT
I feel like the House is too small for a quorum. There's only 5 members, unlike the Assembly. Also, (to any House member reading this, I mean neither disrespect nor offense, and this has no bearing on the good job you have being doing in the service to our region, I like you all) a quorum could potentially convince House members not to vote. I don't want to see any House member to ever get the idea that either their vote is unnecessary or unimportant. With each member of the House holding the governmental position that they do, I feel that every member should be voting with every legislative motion.
|
|
|
Post by Fortwhile on Nov 26, 2017 3:44:10 GMT
Also, the previous two votes have seen 4/5 members vote. While perfect attendance would be ideal, 80% is not bad and does not seem to suggest any sort of problem at present.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Nov 26, 2017 4:11:48 GMT
Also, the previous two votes have seen 4/5 members vote. While perfect attendance would be ideal, 80% is not bad and does not seem to suggest any sort of problem at present. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Nov 27, 2017 17:17:07 GMT
My intentions when writing the language in question was that we would have at least 5 reasonably active MPs, so quorum would not be a problem. I agree that it is still not a problem.
I also intended that "2/3 majority" meant "2/3 of all MPs", not just MPs voting. Absentions are not accounted for at all in the constitution.
In short, I think that the way the constitution is written right now, absention is simply a diplomatic "no" vote. This was not intended, but I believe is the best interpretation. I am open to other interpretations, though.
Robert's Rules of Order seem to indicate that a majority means a majority of votes cast. Abstinence is simply considered being present but not voting, and so is not counted.
It is therefore my opinion that: Abstinence should simply be a means of indicating "present but not voting", and should not be counted except to keep track of who has and has not voted. However, as there is no quorum nor requirement for MPs to be present, the "abstain" option would consequnetly be even more ceremonial.
This may be rather incoherent as I wrote this off and on over an hour and a half and on only one cup of coffee, so feel free to pick it apart.
|
|
|
Post by Nyelant on Nov 27, 2017 18:08:59 GMT
My intentions when writing the language in question was that we would have at least 5 reasonably active MPs, so quorum would not be a problem. I agree that it is still not a problem. I also intended that "2/3 majority" meant "2/3 of all MPs", not just MPs voting. Absentions are not accounted for at all in the constitution. In short, I think that the way the constitution is written right now, absention is simply a diplomatic "no" vote. This was not intended, but I believe is the best interpretation. I am open to other interpretations, though. Robert's Rules of Order seem to indicate that a majority means a majority of votes cast. Abstinence is simply considered being present but not voting, and so is not counted. It is therefore my opinion that: Abstinence should simply be a means of indicating "present but not voting", and should not be counted except to keep track of who has and has not voted. However, as there is no quorum nor requirement for MPs to be present, the "abstain" option would consequnetly be even more ceremonial.This may be rather incoherent as I wrote this off and on over an hour and a half and on only one cup of coffee, so feel free to pick it apart. Like a "I don't agree with any choice" vote. I agree; this is how it should be.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Nov 27, 2017 21:20:53 GMT
So let me bring up a hypothetical scenario where out of the 5 MPs, 4 abstain and 1 votes yea. This will mean that the motion has passed, yes?
|
|
|
Post by Nyelant on Nov 27, 2017 22:03:54 GMT
So let me bring up a hypothetical scenario where out of the 5 MPs, 4 abstain and 1 votes yea. This will mean that the motion has passed, yes? I guess, because the MPs did not clarify their position.
|
|
|
Post by southernaurgediam on Nov 28, 2017 0:48:49 GMT
My intentions when writing the language in question was that we would have at least 5 reasonably active MPs, so quorum would not be a problem. I agree that it is still not a problem. I also intended that "2/3 majority" meant "2/3 of all MPs", not just MPs voting. Absentions are not accounted for at all in the constitution. In short, I think that the way the constitution is written right now, absention is simply a diplomatic "no" vote. This was not intended, but I believe is the best interpretation. I am open to other interpretations, though. Robert's Rules of Order seem to indicate that a majority means a majority of votes cast. Abstinence is simply considered being present but not voting, and so is not counted. It is therefore my opinion that: Abstinence should simply be a means of indicating "present but not voting", and should not be counted except to keep track of who has and has not voted. However, as there is no quorum nor requirement for MPs to be present, the "abstain" option would consequnetly be even more ceremonial.This may be rather incoherent as I wrote this off and on over an hour and a half and on only one cup of coffee, so feel free to pick it apart. [commence off-topic] Thank you for giving me a reason to dig out my copy of Robert's Rules. [end off-topic] According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, a majority vote is, "More than half the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions." (Chapter XIII, §44.) As you pointed out, the abstain option is almost purely ceremonial, demonstrating an MP's belief that there is not a convincing enough argument to vote for or against a motion. I believe that votes of abstain should remain ceremonial, and not serve to torpedo a bill that has otherwise achieved majority support. In short, I hold that a motion (or legislation) should pass provided that it receives a two-thirds plurality of votes cast, rather than a two-thirds absolute majority.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Cari on Nov 28, 2017 2:38:34 GMT
So let me bring up a hypothetical scenario where out of the 5 MPs, 4 abstain and 1 votes yea. This will mean that the motion has passed, yes? An excellent point, we may need an extra layer of bureaucracy where a minimum number of nations voted definitively for a motion to pass. Or just that a majority of "abstain" means the bill needs to be looked at again.
|
|
|
Post by United Barbaros on Nov 28, 2017 5:40:13 GMT
How about this:
1) If the majority of votes is yea, the motion passes. Done.
2) If the majority of votes is nay, the motion is tossed. Done.
3) If the majority of MPs abstain, the motion will be reviewed and voted on again. A motion may only be reviewed and/or altered and voted on twice after the initial vote. If the motion does not pass with a yea majority of votes in the third round of voting (second vote after review and/or altering), it is tossed. Done.
4) If for any reason the majority of MPs neither vote nor abstain in a motion, the PM shall call a re-vote.
|
|
|
Post by Nyelant on Nov 28, 2017 12:53:05 GMT
How about this: 1) If the majority of votes is yea, the motion passes. Done. 2) If the majority of votes is nay, the motion is tossed. Done. 3) If the majority of MPs abstain, the motion will be reviewed and voted on again. A motion may only be reviewed and/or altered and voted on twice after the initial vote. If the motion does not pass with a yea majority of votes in the third round of voting (second vote after review and/or altering), it is tossed. Done. 4) If for any reason the majority of MPs neither vote nor abstain in a motion, the PM shall call a re-vote. Seems simple enough, I'm all for it.
|
|