Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

[Discussion] Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (September 2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arlo

Arlo

Newbie
Verified
Joined
Jun 13, 2018
Messages
92
Feather
ƒ1,214
Can I suggest we be allowed to vote "Against" instead of "Nay". The word nay is a relic of the past and makes me feel immensely awkward. Or, you know, ignore me if nobody agrees :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In order for this to happen you would have to propose an amendment to the Assembly Procedure Act (August 2018) which is stickied in this forum.
 
This looks good to me, but we should exercise caution in the passing of this bill and bills similar to this.

Currently, most of the Speaker's job has very little discretion, (s)he is bound by the constraints of the Assembly Procedure Act (August 2018), and is limited on how (s)he can interpret that law. Although this seems reasonable, we should always be planning for a future time where a Speaker could become corrupt, and, for whatever reason, the Speaker could not be removed from the Office. This gives the Speaker broad authority to interpret votes, which, although Speaker McChimp is fully capable of doing well, a future Speaker could abuse.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pass this (I'll vote Abstain if it comes to it), but it certainly doesn't seem necessary. There really isn't any reason why people cannot vote "Aye," "Nay," or "Abstain," as required by both the opening post of all voting threads and the Assembly Procedure Act (August 2018).
 
I see your point. Although I respectfully disagree with it, as there is no significant issue with providing Legislators with options as to how they cast their votes.

I also do not consider this bill as providing the Speaker with a wide authority on interpreting a vote. '[An] appropriate synonym' is pretty unambiguous and would only require a cursory glance at a thesaurus should any dispute of the vote arise.
 
I don't like "appropriate synonym." Too much ambiguity and Speaker discretion, leading to complaints and potential legal challenges. Is "YOLO" an appropriate synonym for Aye, or not? I would argue it could be. Some would probably argue it couldn't. You see the issue. You might think the issue is absurd, and I'd agree with you, but if there's anything I've learned in NS it's that you can't discount the possibility of a completely absurd and unlikely outcome happening and causing the maximum amount of possible drama. People get bored and do ridiculous things. I've found that low-level, light "trolling" (can't think of a better word for it) is pretty commonplace.

I should note in the interest of full disclosure: I'm not above casting a vote of "YOLO" if this passes, just to test my theory. So I guess pencil me in as one of the low-level, light "trolling" people.  :lol:

Why not just allow votes of Aye or For, Nay or Against, Abstain or Present? If someone can't find one of those options suitable, they're just trying to be annoying to be honest. :P
 
Cormac definitely is going with the same kind of logic I had. I would certainly much rather expand the voting options allowed by the Assembly Procedure Act than give the Speaker the wide-ranging discretion that the current proposal would afford.
 
Determining what is an "appropriate synonym" is in itself a subjective affair. I must concur with Cormac, it might be a triviality, but when is NSGP not dramatic and prone to tear its head apart?

Laws require objective, specific and precise definitions. I'd argue that this subjective amendment would only create ambiguities, as demonstrated by Cormac. And we cannot have it. For one of the issues toxicity finds substinence is ambiguity, which leads to confusion, and, in the end, might lead to confrontation.

And allowing the Speaker to edit a vote? I certainly wish that to not be the case. Whilst we can object in the circumstances that a Speaker is to be corrupt and change a citizen's choice at the last second, we should not have to object in the first place. That demonstrates poor lawmaking, a poor fabric to sew Lazarene law, and, as an effect, an united and harmonious Lazarus.

An expansion of the availabilities of how to say a vote, as suggested by other members of this chamber, is more optimal. Like so...

(5) All votes will take place for five days. Citizens eligible to vote may vote "Aye", "Approve", "Yes", "Acceptable", "Affirmative", "In Favour", or "For" to vote in the affirmative; "Nay," "Disapprove", "No", "Unacceptable", or "Against" to vote against; and "Abstain" or "Present" to abstain. Voters may not post any other content in a voting thread or embellish the format of their vote in any way, and votes that include additional content or embellishment will be discarded and split from the voting thread. Voters may cast their votes by posting in each voting thread.
Click to expand...
 
Why not just allow votes of Aye or For, Nay or Against, Abstain or Present?
Click to expand...

This is reasonable to me. I don't think we need to make an exhaustive list, just allow for something slightly more modern than "Nay". "For" and "Against" are much clearer and straightforward words than "Aye" and "Nay" anyway -- modern simple language is always preferable in law to archaic words or legalese.
 
Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (September 2018)

Proposed By: Arlo[/align]
PreambleSection 1. Amendment of Section 2
[/align]

[/align]


Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (September 2018)

Proposed By: Arlo[/align]
PreambleSection 1. Amendment of Section 2
[/align]

[/align]
 
I think this is getting silly.

I have first hand experience with how these things get out of hand, and you can see it starting to happen right now. If you allow something like "synonyms", you're going to get people voting in other languages, some of which the Speaker may understand and some of which they may not, but which can lead to discrimination in which get counted and which get discounted. You're going to get people posting in emojis, then arguing over whether :silly: is obviously a vote for (it's smiling!) or obviously a vote against (an upside-down smile is a frown!). You're going to get people posting GIFs, then others complaining that when those links are inevitably lost we won't have a record of how that person voted.

As for trying to create an exhaustive list? Well, that has its own dangers. Suppose we use Amerion's draft:
"Aye", "Approve", "Yes", "Acceptable", "Affirmative", "In Favour", or "For" to vote in the affirmative
Click to expand...

Well, now you're gonna get arguments. If all those, why not "sure"? Why not "yeah"? Why not "okay" or "super" or "excellent" or "heck yeah" or "goodness yes" or "your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter" or "shut up and take my money!"? Why not "ja", I mean, we all know that one after all, it's not like it's crazy arabic. But for that matter, why not crazy arabic, since if we're making a firm list we can just put the romanization *and* the arabic letters in there and it's fine. And why not elvish and klingon while we're at it? And maybe we could also include emojis in the list? :) and :( are pretty straightforward after all, everyone knows what those mean.

I'm being humerous but I'm not actually kidding. These are all things I have personally seen happen when a speaker of an assembly tries to open things up to some flexibility. People love to push the boundaries of what's allowed and what isn't, and I can't even say that I myself am above doing that. Sometimes we all have a rebellious FU to authority that's trying to get out.

Pick ONE thing. Yes/No/Pass, Aye/Nay/Abstain, For/Against/Present. Not all three. Not two. ONE thing. It is not onerous or an impediment to someone's right to vote to require that they use that one thing to cast their vote, without embellishment. It is the simplest and best solution that avoids any messy kerfuffles over exactly what is allowed.

I have no strong preferences between the options; any would be fine. But... only one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top