View Topic

This is an offshoot of the Procedural Rules Amendment XIV discussion, where it was determined that instead of changing the language of the laws to determine the specific uses of abstention, we were to clarify the term in an act instead.

Title
1. This act shall be entitled the Definition of Abstention Act.

Definitions
2. The term "abstain" in regards to votes (including but not limited to: Underhusen votes, Overhusen votes, ratification votes) shall be defined as any vote or non-vote that does not include only one of the terms "aye" or "nay".

3. The term "abstain" in regards to votes for elected office shall be defined as any vote or lack thereof that does not select from the prescribed candidates in the election.
   (a)The candidates in an election are defined by the Monarch or other election official in accordance with section IV.2 of the Wintreath Fundamental Laws.

4. Votes marked "abstain" shall not contribute for/against any majority or supermajority for the passing and/or ratification of any bill, nor shall votes marked "abstain" contribute towards the election of any candidate.

Enforcement
5. This act affirms the right of any citizen to abstain from voting during any vote and for any purpose.

Looks solid to me. But I had a hard time seeing exactly where the room for doubt came in to begin with, so my opinion isn't the best one in this instance.

I to think it is Ironclad. Though the same problem also applies to me.

I like it.

But I had a hard time seeing exactly where the room for doubt came in to begin with

If nothing else, the bill serves as a reminder to:

• further clarify the types of abstention
• unequivocally and canonically enforce that abstentions don't count towards/against (super)majorities, thereby reminding the public and alleviating concerns regarding bills passes/ratified despite abstentions
• ensure that "abstain" votes apply to both the Underhusen and Overhusen by making the law pass both houses

These will ensure that an argument over the subject will not and cannot happen again.

I suppose it does at that.

I'm in favour of this. It's mostly housekeeping, but it's necessary, especially considering how often legality is questioned by certain parties in our community...

In that case I motion to vote.

You'd first need to motion to expedite.

Is that in itself a motion to expedite?

We have to be specific.

I motion to expedite

The motion to expedite has failed because the requisite forty-eight hour debate period has already passed. Is @North continuing his motion to vote?

Since we all seem to be in agreement, I motion to vote.

I do.