View Topic

I'm unclear on the protocol of providing proposed bills to the citizenry for comments and suggestions, so if I've erred in some way then that's on me.
Nonetheless, as this constitutes a fairly substantive change to the current practice of the Underhusen, and we've just over a quarter of our term remaining, it seemed appropriate to solicit these comments and suggestions.
No such thread for my other proposed bill, though. It's frankly embarrassing that we need to propose such bills in the first place (which is, of course, why the destruction of the Underhusen, ideally through the cleansing and purifying mechanism of fire, is necessary).

Title
1. This Act shall be titled as the At-Vote Amendment Act.

Amendments
2. A new Section, numbered Section 8, is to be added under the Title of 'Underhusen Procedure', which is to read as follows:

8. A bill that is presently at vote may have an amendment to the bill proposed.
      (a) This proposal must reproduce the full text of the bill.
             (i) If deletions are made, the amended sections of the bill must be struck through.
             (ii) If additions are made, the amended sections of the bill must be bolded.
             (iii) If text is replaced altogether, it may simply be bolded, as if only additions were made; there is no need to have both the deleted text and its replacement visible in this amended bill.
      (b) After the proposal of the amendment, Skrifa may vote on the bill and the amendment separately.
             (i) The Speaker may veto any amendments proposed on the grounds of vexatiousness.
             (ii) If, after the proposal of an amendment, a Skrifa articulates only a single vote, it shall be considered to be directed towards the original form of the bill, and they will be considered to have voted 'Nay' on the amendment.
             (iii) Skrifa who had previously voted on the bill prior to the introduction of the amendment need not necessarily vote on the amendment; they will be considered to have abstained by default unless they subsequently amend their votes.
             (iv) If, after two days, a majority has not been reached on the amendment, and the Speaker has not vetoed the amendment, Skrifa who had voted on the bill prior to the amendment must re-register their vote to take the amendment into account.
      (c) A variety of outcomes may then occur depending on the results of the vote.
             (i) If the original bill passes, but the amendment does not, only the text of the original bill will be considered legal.
             (ii) If the amended bill passes, but the original bill does not, the amended bill will be directed to the Ovehrusen to determine the outcome.
             (iii) If the bill is an amendment to the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen, only the text of the amended bill will be considered legal.
             (iv) If the bill is anything other than an amendment to the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen, both the original bill and the amendment pass, both will be directed to the Overhusen to determine the outcome, as the Overhusen may prefer the original format of the bill to the amended format.

3. All subsequent sections shall be re-numbered accordingly.

      (c) A variety of outcomes may then occur depending on the results of the vote.
             (i) If the original bill passes, but the amendment does not, only the text of the original bill will be considered legal.
             (ii) If the amended bill passes, but the original bill does not, the amended bill will be directed to the Ovehrusen to determine the outcome.
             (iii) If the bill is an amendment to the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen, only the text of the amended bill will be considered legal.
             (iv) If the bill is anything other than an amendment to the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen, both the original bill and the amendment pass, both will be directed to the Overhusen to determine the outcome, as the Overhusen may prefer the original format of the bill to the amended format.

I'm finding (iv) somewhat arbitrary and perhaps unnecessarily complex? It somewhat changes Overhusen procedure away from simply voting on bills, which I'm not sure about (both in legality and personal opinion). If the amendment passes, then that's the version the UH wants, and I feel like that's the one that should be sent to the OH.

I'm finding (iv) somewhat arbitrary and perhaps unnecessarily complex? It somewhat changes Overhusen procedure away from simply voting on bills, which I'm not sure about (both in legality and personal opinion). If the amendment passes, then that's the version the UH wants, and I feel like that's the one that should be sent to the OH.

I largely put that in there because considered the possibility of an edge case where people find both the original text of the bill and the amended bill to be palatable; I find it unlikely but a possibility.
In that case, though, it made most sense to me for both bills to go to the OH; if they approve one but not the other, the one becomes law; if they approve both, again, somehow, the amended bill is the one that becomes law.
Frankly, the entire section is legislation with a very narrow purpose in mind, and were it its own amendment I wouldn't even think it worth considering, but as part of a larger bill I think it has its place (i.e. to prevent people like me who want silly shenanigans to happen from conspiring to get both the original text of a bill and the amended bill passed, and raising the question of 'so which bill actually winds up going to the OH then?').

I'm finding (iv) somewhat arbitrary and perhaps unnecessarily complex? It somewhat changes Overhusen procedure away from simply voting on bills, which I'm not sure about (both in legality and personal opinion). If the amendment passes, then that's the version the UH wants, and I feel like that's the one that should be sent to the OH.

I largely put that in there because considered the possibility of an edge case where people find both the original text of the bill and the amended bill to be palatable; I find it unlikely but a possibility.
In that case, though, it made most sense to me for both bills to go to the OH; if they approve one but not the other, the one becomes law; if they approve both, again, somehow, the amended bill is the one that becomes law.
Frankly, the entire section is legislation with a very narrow purpose in mind, and were it its own amendment I wouldn't even think it worth considering, but as part of a larger bill I think it has its place (i.e. to prevent people like me who want silly shenanigans to happen from conspiring to get both the original text of a bill and the amended bill passed, and raising the question of 'so which bill actually winds up going to the OH then?').

If the amended bill passes, wouldn't that mean that the UH prefers the amended bill to the original? In which case I think it only makes sense for the amended bill to go to the OH, not the original.

If the amended bill passes, wouldn't that mean that the UH prefers the amended bill to the original? In which case I think it only makes sense for the amended bill to go to the OH, not the original.

If they outright prefer it to the original, then they would pass the amended bill and fail the original one. That point is solely meant to cover those edge cases where really they're fundamentally ambivalent about the differences between the two. I can't think of any examples where it might be the case other than the Shenanigans one I mentioned earlier, but I can certainly see that it's a scenario that might occur.

If the amended bill passes, wouldn't that mean that the UH prefers the amended bill to the original? In which case I think it only makes sense for the amended bill to go to the OH, not the original.

If they outright prefer it to the original, then they would pass the amended bill and fail the original one. That point is solely meant to cover those edge cases where really they're fundamentally ambivalent about the differences between the two. I can't think of any examples where it might be the case other than the Shenanigans one I mentioned earlier, but I can certainly see that it's a scenario that might occur.

I suppose I'm coming from a point of belief that the UH should be the one making these decisions here. And that is a strange edge case whereas I feel like in practice, this is more likely to happen simply due to Skrifa forgetting to remove their votes from the original bill, at which point two redundant bills move on to the OH in a way that their procedure isn't really designed to handle.

Edits have been made to the bill, most notably to Subsection C. This should also hopefully ease @taulover's previously expressed concerns.

Title
1. This Act shall be titled as the At-Vote Amendment Act.

Amendments
2. A new Section, numbered Section 8, is to be added under the Title of 'Underhusen Procedure', which is to read as follows:

8. A bill that is presently at vote may have an amendment to the bill proposed.
      (a) This proposal must reproduce the full text of the bill.
             (i) If deletions are made, the amended sections of the bill must be struck through.
             (ii) If additions are made, the amended sections of the bill must be bolded.
             (iii) If text is replaced altogether, it may simply be bolded, as if only additions were made; there is no need to have both the deleted text and its replacement visible in this amended bill.
      (b) After the proposal of the amendment, Skrifa may vote on the bill and the amendment separately.
             (i) The Speaker may veto any amendments proposed on the grounds of vexatiousness.
             (ii) If, after the proposal of an amendment, a Skrifa articulates only a single vote, it shall be considered to be directed towards the original form of the bill, and they will be considered to have voted 'Nay' on the amendment.
             (iii) Skrifa who had previously voted on the bill prior to the introduction of the amendment need not necessarily vote on the amendment; they will be considered to have abstained by default unless they subsequently amend their votes.
             (iv) If, after two days, a majority has not been reached on the amendment, and the Speaker has not vetoed the amendment, Skrifa who had voted on the bill prior to the amendment must re-register their vote to take the amendment into account.
      (c) A variety of outcomes may then occur depending on the results of the vote.
             (i) If the original bill passes, but the amendment does not, only the text of the original bill will be considered legal.
             (ii) If the amended bill passes, but the original bill does not, the amended bill will be directed to the Overhusen to determine the outcome.
             (iii) If both the original bill and the amendment pass, the amended bill will be considered to have primacy, and accordingly will be the only bill of the two directed to the Overhusen to determine the outcome.

3. All subsequent sections shall be re-numbered accordingly.