Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020)

[Deleted1]

Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020)

Proposed by: @Debussy​

Preamble

This amendment shall resolve a conflict between the Mandate and the Assembly Procedures Act

Section 1. Amendment to Section 2. subsection (3)

(1) Section 2. subsection (3), as it is currently written, reads:

(2) Section 2. subsection (3), with the inclusion of new text highlighted in green, will be amended to read:

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020)

Proposed by: @Debussy​

Preamble

This amendment shall alter how legislation may be brought to vote and resolve conflicts between the Mandate and the Assembly Procedures Act

Section 1. Amendment to Section 2. subsection (2)

(1) Section 2. subsection (2), as it is currently written, reads:

Section 2. subsection (2), with the inclusion of new text highlighted in green, will be amended to read:

Section 2. Amendment to Section 2. subsection (3)

(1) Section 2. subsection (3), as it is currently written, reads:

Section 2. subsection (3), with the inclusion of new text highlighted in green, will be amended to read:

I wholeheartedly support the amendment to Section 2, subsection 3, for transferring aspects of military policy to the people's duly elected representative in the executive branch. However, I fail to see the rationale for the amendment to Section 2, subsection 2. If the shareholder/citizen who proposes legislation cannot commit long enough to it to forward it to a vote, then there is no reason that the legislation should be considered, to my mind. As such, qualifications contingent upon the length of discussion are a bad idea in my opinion.

 

[temmi]

I am new to this but forcing myself to try to be active and learn so I hope I don't sound too dumb!! I like the first change. It would be awkward if someone posted in other parts of the site and never motioned to vote making it at a stand still. For the second change, why don't we have both the prime minister and the delegate be able to do it instead of just one of them? That way if one if not around much the other can still do it if we need to! anyway, good work Debussy!! ^-^

 

[Deleted1]

However, I fail to see the rationale for the amendment to Section 2, subsection 2.

It's a good idea to give assembly members more control over voting. You make a good point on the author having to be around though. The initial author can keep control of their thread for a week and then the community and speaker can decide what to do from there.

I am new to this but forcing myself to try to be active and learn so I hope I don't sound too dumb!! I like the first change. It would be awkward if someone posted in other parts of the site and never motioned to vote making it at a stand still. For the second change, why don't we have both the prime minister and the delegate be able to do it instead of just one of them? That way if one if not around much the other can still do it if we need to! anyway, good work Debussy!! ^-^

Good idea, Temmi. I had the same idea, but the mandate does not allow for it.

 

[temmi]

However, I fail to see the rationale for the amendment to Section 2, subsection 2.

It's a good idea to give assembly members more control over voting. You make a good point on the author having to be around though. The initial author can keep control of their thread for a week and then the community and speaker can decide what to do from there.

I am new to this but forcing myself to try to be active and learn so I hope I don't sound too dumb!! I like the first change. It would be awkward if someone posted in other parts of the site and never motioned to vote making it at a stand still. For the second change, why don't we have both the prime minister and the delegate be able to do it instead of just one of them? That way if one if not around much the other can still do it if we need to! anyway, good work Debussy!! ^-^

Good idea, Temmi. I had the same idea, but the mandate does not allow for it.

if someone proposes something that people like, but they themselves can't be around or something happens where they have to leave, i agree that everyone else should be able to still vote on it if they like it regardless of that person's situation.

and oh ok...is this change then just to make it so this law is the same as what the mandate already is??

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

However, I fail to see the rationale for the amendment to Section 2, subsection 2.

It's a good idea to give assembly members more control over voting. You make a good point on the author having to be around though. The initial author can keep control of their thread for a week and then the community and speaker can decide what to do from there.

I am new to this but forcing myself to try to be active and learn so I hope I don't sound too dumb!! I like the first change. It would be awkward if someone posted in other parts of the site and never motioned to vote making it at a stand still. For the second change, why don't we have both the prime minister and the delegate be able to do it instead of just one of them? That way if one if not around much the other can still do it if we need to! anyway, good work Debussy!! ^-^

Good idea, Temmi. I had the same idea, but the mandate does not allow for it.

I see your rationale on the amendment to Section 2, subsection 2. The bill exists independently of its author at some point, and must be evaluated on its own merit instead of the level of commitment had by the author, especially considering RL considerations may crop up.

However, for those who may take issue with the amendment to Section 2, subsection 3, I would remind all that the democratization amendment to Mandate 12 was instituted for good reason, specifically to designate executive functions formerly possessed by unelected officials (i.e. the Delegate) as reserved by the people's elected officials (i.e. the PM/Managing Director). I see no reason for why the newer provisions of the Mandate should be curtailed.

 

[Capercom]

or the dicussion period has continued for more than seven days.

*Discussion

Secondly,

Who calls for the vote if the discussion period has lasted longer than 7 days or the author isn't a citizen/MIA?

 

[Zapatian Workers State]

or the dicussion period has continued for more than seven days.

*Discussion

Secondly,

Who calls for the vote if the discussion period has lasted longer than 7 days or the author isn't a citizen/MIA?

From my interpretation, literally any shareholder

 

[New Rogernomics]

I should state that this already exists in the mandate, so this part on the PM being set to do treaties,etc would just be updating the act. As some were unsure about that.

(4) The Assembly may enact, amend, or repeal treaties, at the request of the Prime Minister, by 50%+1 vote.

 

[Deleted1]

I am new to this but forcing myself to try to be active and learn so I hope I don't sound too dumb!! I like the first change. It would be awkward if someone posted in other parts of the site and never motioned to vote making it at a stand still. For the second change, why don't we have both the prime minister and the delegate be able to do it instead of just one of them? That way if one if not around much the other can still do it if we need to! anyway, good work Debussy!! ^-^

or the dicussion period has continued for more than seven days.

*Discussion

Secondly,

Who calls for the vote if the discussion period has lasted longer than 7 days or the author isn't a citizen/MIA?

From my interpretation, literally any shareholder

Votes can be started after 3 days. The author would get 4 days from there, but after that the idea would be that anyone could motion the vote.

Thanks Capercom. I fixed it.

 

[McChimp]

I am in favour of resolving the conflict between the Mandate and the Assembly Procedures Act by aligning 2:3 with the constitution post Democratic Reform Amendment.

I am not in favour of allowing anybody to motion a proposal to vote after seven days have elapsed. Each proposal belongs to its author, whose name shall be printed on it forever. It just doesn't make sense to allow another citizen to seize it from their control, sending it to vote before it's been made robust enough to pass. I will have to vote against any proposal which introduces this procedure.

 

[Deleted1]

I took out the change to motions.

 

[temmi]

I am in favour of resolving the conflict between the Mandate and the Assembly Procedures Act by aligning 2:3 with the constitution post Democratic Reform Amendment.

I am not in favour of allowing anybody to motion a proposal to vote after seven days have elapsed. Each proposal belongs to its author, whose name shall be printed on it forever. It just doesn't make sense to allow another citizen to seize it from their control, sending it to vote before it's been made robust enough to pass. I will have to vote against any proposal which introduces this procedure.

But if the original author goes inactive or loses citizenship because of RL and the rest of the region really likes the proposal, someone else would have to copy it and have to propose it again which seems convoluted.

 

[Capercom]

I am in favour of resolving the conflict between the Mandate and the Assembly Procedures Act by aligning 2:3 with the constitution post Democratic Reform Amendment.

I am not in favour of allowing anybody to motion a proposal to vote after seven days have elapsed. Each proposal belongs to its author, whose name shall be printed on it forever. It just doesn't make sense to allow another citizen to seize it from their control, sending it to vote before it's been made robust enough to pass. I will have to vote against any proposal which introduces this procedure.

I agree with the sentiment, but when a politician dies or gets hospitalized while a bill is in the middle of committee being discussed to mark up and move to vote...the proposed bill still moves forward. The gears of government continue and stop for no man.

 

[temmi]

Reading this further...isn't this contradicting itself already?

"Section 2. Legislative Procedures

(2) In order for a proposal to be brought to vote, a citizen eligible to vote on that proposal must make a motion to vote, and another such citizen must second the motion. A motion to vote may only be made by the initial author of a proposal..."

In the first sentence it tells us that any citizen eligible to vote can make the motion to vote, but then immediately says no, only the initial author can? i can be eligible to vote, making me able to motion it to vote, without being the author! It seems a little confusing to begin with O.O! like the reason i said before, i think it would make sense to allow any eligible citizen to motion to vote, especially in circumstances where the author for whatever reason stops posting in the thread making it a stand-still...

 

[Deleted1]

I agree. There could be better wording to outline the process - even if it is the same process.

 

[McChimp]

Reading this further...isn't this contradicting itself already?

"Section 2. Legislative Procedures

(2) In order for a proposal to be brought to vote, a citizen eligible to vote on that proposal must make a motion to vote, and another such citizen must second the motion. A motion to vote may only be made by the initial author of a proposal..."

In the first sentence it tells us that any citizen eligible to vote can make the motion to vote, but then immediately says no, only the initial author can? i can be eligible to vote, making me able to motion it to vote, without being the author! It seems a little confusing to begin with O.O! like the reason i said before, i think it would make sense to allow any eligible citizen to motion to vote, especially in circumstances where the author for whatever reason stops posting in the thread making it a stand-still...

It's not as clear as it could be, but it's not a contradiction either. As it stands, it sets out three conditions a person must meet in order to bring the proposal to vote:

1. they must be a citizen,
2. they must be eligible to vote on the proposal (which a citizen might not be if they've been convicted of a crime or barred from voting by the security apparatus),
3. they must have authored the proposal.

None of which contradict each other.

 

[Deleted1]

I motion to vote.

 

[McChimp]

I second the motion.

 

[Roavin]

Shareholders of Lazarus,

With 11 Aye, 0 No, and 2 Abstain, "Assembly Procedure Act Amendment (February 2020)" has passed with 100% for and 0% against.

-- Roavin, Chairperson of the Shareholders