NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate]

[Bleckonia]

Nay to both.

[Timsvill]

Executive Reform Act | Authors: Slazliyka, Great Nepal, Owen Tarniff

---

Council: 22 (32%)
Executive: 29 (42%)
Nay/Status Quo Ante: 10
Abstain: 8

I change my vote from Abstain to executive!

[Ainin]

Executive Reform Act | Authors: Slazliyka, Great Nepal, Owen Tarniff

---

Council: 22
Executive: 30
Nay/Status Quo Ante: 11
Abstain: 7

[Rumostan]

Executive Reform Act | Authors: Slazliyka, Great Nepal, Owen Tarniff

---

Council: 22
Executive: 30
Nay/Status Quo Ante: 11
Abstain: 7

Look back, the ayes are actually 23

[Ainin]

Executive Reform Act | Authors: Slazliyka, Great Nepal, Owen Tarniff

---

Council: 22
Executive: 30
Nay/Status Quo Ante: 11
Abstain: 7

Look back, the ayes are actually 23

Link it. I only used Maklohi's count and added Timsvill and Bleckonia's votes.

[Rumostan]

Look back, the ayes are actually 23

Link it. I only used Maklohi's count and added Timsvill and Bleckonia's votes.

Oh wait, I didn't see the change, ignore me.

[Wolfmanne]

Executive is winning? Maybe I won't leave the Senate after all...

[Yanalia]

Executive is winning? Maybe I won't leave the Senate after all...

Actually executive is losing. Council just also happens to be losing.

[Wolfmanne]

Executive is winning? Maybe I won't leave the Senate after all...

Actually executive is losing. Council just also happens to be losing.

Oh, even better then.

[Beta Test]

Executive is winning? Maybe I won't leave the Senate after all...

Actually executive is losing. Council just also happens to be losing.

What's that supposed to mean?

[Wolfmanne]

Actually executive is losing. Council just also happens to be losing.

What's that supposed to mean?

Because I think I said I would only approve one if it had a supermajority of 66%. I have to stand by a promise I made. Unless Yanalia has another reason.

[Blassland]

Actually executive is losing. Council just also happens to be losing.

What's that supposed to mean?

each side needs a simple majority to win, neither has that

[Yanalia]

What's that supposed to mean?

Because I think I said I would only approve one if it had a supermajority of 66%. I have to stand by a promise I made. Unless Yanalia has another reason.

No, actually executive is just losing the vote right now. Since votes for the council are nays to the executive, and so are the double nay votes. So executive has more nays than ayes.

[Great Nepal]

Actually executive is losing. Council just also happens to be losing.

What's that supposed to mean?

Executive has the plurality (and is excruciatingly close to having majority), however none of them have 51% required to pass senate and more importantly, none have 66% required to ensure Wolf doesn't veto it.

[Beta Test]

Because I think I said I would only approve one if it had a supermajority of 66%. I have to stand by a promise I made. Unless Yanalia has another reason.

No, actually executive is just losing the vote right now. Since votes for the council are nays to the executive, and so are the double nay votes. So executive has more nays than ayes.

I didn't think about it that way. No one has the majority but the executive has the plurality

[Wolfmanne]

I am totally lost. To clarify:

1. Executive vote is for executive?
2. Council vote is for council?
3. Status quo is for... erm what is says and against the other two?
4. A base simple majority is required and all right for it even to be Senatorial legislation?

[Yanalia]

I am totally lost. To clarify:

1. Executive vote is for executive?
2. Council vote is for council?
3. Status quo is for... erm what is says and against the other two?
4. A base simple majority is required and all right for it even to be Senatorial legislation?

All yes. Basically imagine this as a standard omnibus vote.

Council Aye:
Council Nay:

Executive Aye:
Executive Nay:

Abstain:

Right? But we simplified it because we can't have both acts passing. Choosing "executive" is a vote for the executive, and therefore by implication a vote against the council, and vice versa for a vote for the council. Meanwhile, the both nays add to both totals.

[Maklohi Vai]

I am totally lost. To clarify:

1. Executive vote is for executive?
2. Council vote is for council?
3. Status quo is for... erm what is says and against the other two?
4. A base simple majority is required and all right for it even to be Senatorial legislation?

1. Executive vote is for executive bill, as well as a nay to the council.
2. Council vote is for council, as well as a nay to the executive bill.
3. Status quo is nays on both bills; it maintains the status quo.
4. A base simple majority is required for any Senatorial legislation to pass.

[Haelunor]

Oh God, who knew getting a majority would be anything but simple?

If you could, I would like to change my vote from Council to Nay for both.

[Geilinor]

What's that supposed to mean?

Because I think I said I would only approve one if it had a supermajority of 66%. I have to stand by a promise I made.

Why? We do need executive reform at the very minimum. Also, does the Republican Executive Act even give you that authority?

[Phing Phong]

Because I think I said I would only approve one if it had a supermajority of 66%. I have to stand by a promise I made.

Why? We do need executive reform at the very minimum. Also, does the Republican Executive Act even give you that authority?

The President may:

Remand/veto a bill to the Senate if it's unconstitutional and call for revisions (may only do this once), with a full explanation.

As the only Constitution we have is that of the Senate, and there is nothing in that document which this particular vote (as flawed as the way it has been conducted may be) has contradicted, I do not think the President has the power to do as he has suggested.

[Slazliyka]

Why? We do need executive reform at the very minimum. Also, does the Republican Executive Act even give you that authority?

The President may:

Remand/veto a bill to the Senate if it's unconstitutional and call for revisions (may only do this once), with a full explanation.

As the only Constitution we have is that of the Senate, and there is nothing in that document which this particular vote (as flawed as the way it has been conducted may be) has contradicted, I do not think the President has the power to do as he has suggested.

Technically he can if he provides what he finds to be a full explanation. He an only do it once though.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The President may:

As the only Constitution we have is that of the Senate, and there is nothing in that document which this particular vote (as flawed as the way it has been conducted may be) has contradicted, I do not think the President has the power to do as he has suggested.

Technically he can if he provides what he finds to be a full explanation. He an only do it once though.

The bills we're voting on are unconstitutional?

[New Zepuha]

Why? We do need executive reform at the very minimum. Also, does the Republican Executive Act even give you that authority?

The President may:

Remand/veto a bill to the Senate if it's unconstitutional and call for revisions (may only do this once), with a full explanation.

As the only Constitution we have is that of the Senate, and there is nothing in that document which this particular vote (as flawed as the way it has been conducted may be) has contradicted, I do not think the President has the power to do as he has suggested.

So effectively he has thrown out 72 hours of useful senate time? For nothing.

[Republik auf Texas]

I vote yay for excutive