09-21-2018, 05:25 PM
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).
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).