View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Proper Voting within the Underhusen Amendment Act

Amendments
2. Section 5 of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen is to be amended to read as follows:

5. Any Skrifa other than the Speaker may motion to vote or second a motion to vote on any proposal once the two-day debate period has expired. The Speaker shall open the vote no later than five days after the motion to vote has passed. The vote must occur in a separate thread, started by the Speaker, with the text of the act being voted upon within the post and the title of the thread being the name of the act, or an acronym if it is too long, and with a marker denoting it is the voting thread. If this does not occur, the vote is immediately void.

Because some people aren't actually following procedure, I felt the need to introduce this act.

There's no wording that the Speaker cannot second the motion to expedite, and it seems that when a motion to expedite passes, it also incorporates a motion to vote.
There's additionally no requirement in the Procedural Rules for the Speaker to create a new topic, instead of just conducting the motion to vote within the discussion thread.
I think you confuse convention with procedure here, since the Speaker has not actually violated any procedural rules; merely conventions previous seatings saw fit to follow.

Doc, if a motion to vote in a part of a motion to expedite then the Speaker cannot do that either since Speakers are now no longer able to second motions to vote.

The point I was making was that a Speaker is not EXPLICITLY prevented from seconding a motion to expedite, but a motion to expedite IMPLICITLY contains a motion to vote. It might be an oversight, but there's nothing explicitly preventing this either.

Which creates a legal question we now have to answer.

a motion to expedite IMPLICITLY contains a motion to vote

A motion to expedite directly leads to a vote, but it isn't defined as connected to a motion to vote anywhere and so I would think that a motion to expedite does not contain a motion to vote, implicitly or otherwise.

A motion to expedite directly leads to a vote, but it isn't defined as connected to a motion to vote anywhere and so I would think that a motion to expedite does not contain a motion to vote, implicitly or otherwise.

I think that's a question of interpretation then. It certainly seems we both agree it does directly lead to a vote; I see that as implicitly containing the motion to vote as a result, whereas it appears you instead consider it more like an alternative pathway towards a vote.

It's not just the outcome, when it can be utilized is also important. Motions to expedite should be used for emergencies and extraordinary situations when legislation is urgently needed. As such, in my view, the Speaker should keep the power to second such motions since urgency is the key word.

A motion to vote is the majority of the house agreeing that the time for debate has passed and that a vote should be had on a proposal. Plus, such a motion can only be introduced once a certain amount of time has passed.

While the outcomes are similar the situations they would be used in are different. As such, in my view, they should be treated differently even if the outcome is the same.

Now, a case may be made that a Speaker may abuse this and use motions to expedite as a means to stifle debate and force acts to a vote before they are ready. However, in such a case, first, another member of the UH must either propose or second a motion for it to pass, second, the majority of the UH must vote in favour for it to pass where, third, it must pass the OH and then, fourth, not be repealed by future UHs. Any Speaker who attempts to use expedition inappropriately will be doing it very clearly and, as such, both the house and the people can take measures to stop them. As such, I see no reason to worry.