NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[The State of Czecho-Slovakia]

Do we have any procedure for what happens if there's a tie? Does the bill go back to the Coffee Shop for revision, or do we call another vote?

[The State of Czecho-Slovakia]

Also, I feel that it is necessary to cap the Senate's amount of Senators, as if we left it open we would end up with a long list of members, few of whom were actually active on a regular basis. An uncapped Senate would serve only to clutter record keeping. As for the bill itself, 200 is a bit large for my taste, and my opponents are somewhat right in the respect that there will probably never be anything like 200 active Senators at any one point, I would have preferred 100 to be the cap. But nothings perfect, am I right?

[Evraim]

Do we have any procedure for what happens if there's a tie? Does the bill go back to the Coffee Shop for revision, or do we call another vote?

I don't think we have any provisions yet. I would prefer that the bill go back to the Coffee Shop though. Passing a resolution with only fifty percent approval is not really democratic or fair. Were we to establish a procedure through legislation that gave authority to one person to act as a tie-breaker, I would be content. At this point, however, the first option you mentioned appeals to me.

Also, I feel that it is necessary to cap the Senate's amount of Senators, as if we left it open we would end up with a long list of members, few of whom were actually active on a regular basis. An uncapped Senate would serve only to clutter record keeping. As for the bill itself, 200 is a bit large for my taste, and my opponents are somewhat right in the respect that there will probably never be anything like 200 active Senators at any one point, I would have preferred 100 to be the cap. But nothings perfect, am I right?

I don't object to the cap so much as to the other measures attached to the bill. The first-come, first-serve rule does nothing to benefit the Senate or the people of NSG. Expelling inactive members without an election or without consulting the political parties strikes me as detrimental to the political discourse in so far as it eliminates unique voices that might depart from those of the usual Generalites. I also think that this system hurts younger nations by giving an unearned advantage to older ones.

[Othelos]

Do we have any procedure for what happens if there's a tie? Does the bill go back to the Coffee Shop for revision, or do we call another vote?

The constitution says something has to past with a majority of 50% +1.

The constitution would be so much better worded if Thafoo hadn't ignored my edits that cleared up the wording. I mean, "SETTING the required number of votes to put legislation on the floor to be put up to vote be at least 5 and setting a majority of 50%+1 of those who have voted "FOR" on legislation," could be worded so much better.

[Oneracon]

Do we have any procedure for what happens if there's a tie? Does the bill go back to the Coffee Shop for revision, or do we call another vote?

The constitution says something has to past with a majority of 50% +1.

The constitution would be so much better worded if Thafoo hadn't ignored my edits that cleared up the wording. I mean, "SETTING the required number of votes to put legislation on the floor to be put up to vote be at least 5 and setting a majority of 50%+1 of those who have voted "FOR" on legislation," could be worded so much better.

We could always do some amendments later

[Othelos]

Also, I feel that it is necessary to cap the Senate's amount of Senators, as if we left it open we would end up with a long list of members, few of whom were actually active on a regular basis. An uncapped Senate would serve only to clutter record keeping. As for the bill itself, 200 is a bit large for my taste, and my opponents are somewhat right in the respect that there will probably never be anything like 200 active Senators at any one point, I would have preferred 100 to be the cap. But nothings perfect, am I right?

Inactive Senators are cleared out after 15 days per the constitution.

Thus, the redundancy of this bill.

[Great Nepal]

Also, I feel that it is necessary to cap the Senate's amount of Senators, as if we left it open we would end up with a long list of members, few of whom were actually active on a regular basis. An uncapped Senate would serve only to clutter record keeping. As for the bill itself, 200 is a bit large for my taste, and my opponents are somewhat right in the respect that there will probably never be anything like 200 active Senators at any one point, I would have preferred 100 to be the cap. But nothings perfect, am I right?

I am willing to bet fifty bucks that we wont get 100 active senators at any give point.

[Evraim]

Do we have any procedure for what happens if there's a tie? Does the bill go back to the Coffee Shop for revision, or do we call another vote?

The constitution says something has to past with a majority of 50% +1.

The constitution would be so much better worded if Thafoo hadn't ignored my edits that cleared up the wording. I mean, "SETTING the required number of votes to put legislation on the floor to be put up to vote be at least 5 and setting a majority of 50%+1 of those who have voted "FOR" on legislation," could be worded so much better.

So 50.9% wouldn't be enough to pass a bill?

[Mollary]

The constitution says something has to past with a majority of 50% +1.

The constitution would be so much better worded if Thafoo hadn't ignored my edits that cleared up the wording. I mean, "SETTING the required number of votes to put legislation on the floor to be put up to vote be at least 5 and setting a majority of 50%+1 of those who have voted "FOR" on legislation," could be worded so much better.

So 50.9% wouldn't be enough to pass a bill?

It means at least 50% of senators and then one more senator, not one more %. I think.

[Othelos]

The constitution says something has to past with a majority of 50% +1.

The constitution would be so much better worded if Thafoo hadn't ignored my edits that cleared up the wording. I mean, "SETTING the required number of votes to put legislation on the floor to be put up to vote be at least 5 and setting a majority of 50%+1 of those who have voted "FOR" on legislation," could be worded so much better.

So 50.9% wouldn't be enough to pass a bill?

It means that there needs to be one more vote than just 50% to pass a bill.

[Chetssaland]

A manual recount brought me to 18 FOR, 17 AGAINST.

With my vote it would be:

19 FOR
17 AGAINST

I encourage someone to check my math as well.

[Imperiatom]

Do we have any procedure for what happens if there's a tie? Does the bill go back to the Coffee Shop for revision, or do we call another vote?

One would presume the legislation would have to go back to the drawing board to be redrafted to be voted on again when there is room on the senate floor.

[Old Tyrannia]

After careful consideration, I have decided to vote against the bill.

[Imperiatom]

Also, I feel that it is necessary to cap the Senate's amount of Senators, as if we left it open we would end up with a long list of members, few of whom were actually active on a regular basis. An uncapped Senate would serve only to clutter record keeping. As for the bill itself, 200 is a bit large for my taste, and my opponents are somewhat right in the respect that there will probably never be anything like 200 active Senators at any one point, I would have preferred 100 to be the cap. But nothings perfect, am I right?

The roman senate had for most of its life between 300 and 600 senators. I would be in favor of this.

[Chetssaland]

A manual recount brought me to 18 FOR, 17 AGAINST.

With my vote it would be:

19 FOR
17 AGAINST

I encourage someone to check my math as well.

After a second count, I ended up with the official numbers. I'm going to do a third and final one.

[Chetssaland]

A manual recount brought me to 18 FOR, 17 AGAINST.

With my vote it would be:

19 FOR
17 AGAINST

I encourage someone to check my math as well.

After a second count, I ended up with the official numbers. I'm going to do a third and final one.

My third count brought me, once again, to 19-17. Following Old Tyrannia's vote:

FOR
19

AGAINST
18

[Evraim]

Chetts, if you manage to determine who has been excluded from the official list, I will update it. At this point, however, I have eighteen votes recorded on each side of the issue.

Senatorial Limitation Act

---

For: 18

Bleckonia, Geilinor, The Republic of Pantalleria, Fulflood, Mike the Progressive, Soldati senza confini, Wolfmanne, New Sapienta, Braxil, Urumgard, Aeken, Crata, TaQud, Mollary, Subramani, Benomia, The State of Czecho-Slovakia, Chettsland

Against: 18

Regnum Dominae, Othelos, Raurosia, Ziegenhain, Fessleria, Aquitayne, United Provinces of Atlantica, Diopolis, Oneracon, Evraim, Irredento, Polvia, Chestaan, Uiiop, Great Nepal, Reggae Magmia, Ceni, Old Tyrannia

Approval: 50.00%

[Chetssaland]

Chetts, if you manage to determine who has been excluded from the official list, I will update it. At this point, however, I have eighteen votes recorded on each side of the issue.

Senatorial Limitation Act

---

For: 18

Bleckonia, Geilinor, The Republic of Pantalleria, Fulflood, Mike the Progressive, Soldati senza confini, Wolfmanne, New Sapienta, Braxil, Urumgard, Aeken, Crata, TaQud, Mollary, Subramani, Benomia, The State of Czecho-Slovakia, Chettsland

Against: 18

Regnum Dominae, Othelos, Raurosia, Ziegenhain, Fessleria, Aquitayne, United Provinces of Atlantica, Diopolis, Oneracon, Evraim, Irredento, Polvia, Chestaan, Uiiop, Great Nepal, Reggae Magmia, Ceni, Old Tyrannia

Approval: 50.00%

Radiatia went uncounted.

[Gallup]

Chetts, if you manage to determine who has been excluded from the official list, I will update it. At this point, however, I have eighteen votes recorded on each side of the issue.

Senatorial Limitation Act

---

For: 18

Bleckonia, Geilinor, The Republic of Pantalleria, Fulflood, Mike the Progressive, Soldati senza confini, Wolfmanne, New Sapienta, Braxil, Urumgard, Aeken, Crata, TaQud, Mollary, Subramani, Benomia, The State of Czecho-Slovakia, Chettsland

Against: 18

Regnum Dominae, Othelos, Raurosia, Ziegenhain, Fessleria, Aquitayne, United Provinces of Atlantica, Diopolis, Oneracon, Evraim, Irredento, Polvia, Chestaan, Uiiop, Great Nepal, Reggae Magmia, Ceni, Old Tyrannia

Approval: 50.00%

I haven't voted. Can I still vote?

[Chetssaland]

Chetts, if you manage to determine who has been excluded from the official list, I will update it. At this point, however, I have eighteen votes recorded on each side of the issue.

Senatorial Limitation Act

---

For: 18

Bleckonia, Geilinor, The Republic of Pantalleria, Fulflood, Mike the Progressive, Soldati senza confini, Wolfmanne, New Sapienta, Braxil, Urumgard, Aeken, Crata, TaQud, Mollary, Subramani, Benomia, The State of Czecho-Slovakia, Chettsland

Against: 18

Regnum Dominae, Othelos, Raurosia, Ziegenhain, Fessleria, Aquitayne, United Provinces of Atlantica, Diopolis, Oneracon, Evraim, Irredento, Polvia, Chestaan, Uiiop, Great Nepal, Reggae Magmia, Ceni, Old Tyrannia

Approval: 50.00%

I haven't voted. Can I still vote?

Yep.

[Chestaan]

Chetts, if you manage to determine who has been excluded from the official list, I will update it. At this point, however, I have eighteen votes recorded on each side of the issue.

Senatorial Limitation Act

---

For: 18

Bleckonia, Geilinor, The Republic of Pantalleria, Fulflood, Mike the Progressive, Soldati senza confini, Wolfmanne, New Sapienta, Braxil, Urumgard, Aeken, Crata, TaQud, Mollary, Subramani, Benomia, The State of Czecho-Slovakia, Chettsland

Against: 18

Regnum Dominae, Othelos, Raurosia, Ziegenhain, Fessleria, Aquitayne, United Provinces of Atlantica, Diopolis, Oneracon, Evraim, Irredento, Polvia, Chestaan, Uiiop, Great Nepal, Reggae Magmia, Ceni, Old Tyrannia

Approval: 50.00%

I haven't voted. Can I still vote?

Yes

[Gallup]

I haven't voted. Can I still vote?

Yep.

Senator Gallup Votes:
YES

[Vietnam]

No.

[Gallup]

No.

And we're tied again.

[Priory Academy USSR]

I vote YES to the Senatorial Limitations Act.