View Topic

Title
1. This act will be cited as the Third Session of the Underhusen Seating Act.
Act
2. The third session of the Wintreath Underhusen shall be composed of five (5) Representatives.

This bill now enters a 48 hour debate period.

Why not seven Skrifa?

Chanku, I, sadly, think we don't have enough active members to raise it to seven, even six.

I'd be interested at trialling it at six this term, but I feel seven would definitely be too high. Perhaps the best way to create activity is to provide opportunity for it.

I'd be interested at trialling it at six this term, but I feel seven would definitely be too high. Perhaps the best way to create activity is to provide opportunity for it.

Six wouldn't provide a tie breaker though.
Your other point is much more interesting. I think we should consider this. Do we feel like more spots will bring more activity?
I think it might.

Perhaps grant the Speaker the right in a tie-breaker to either change their vote or claim victory for their side of the argument. This comes with a further 24 hours of time for both sides to place any additional arguments before him/her.

Or maybe the king(or the speaker) can appoint a member for the vote if it is tied. They are only active for the vote and should only be chosen when the vote is tied.

I think the speaker idea works. Isn't that what the VP does in the US when there's a tie in the Senate or the House?

Yes, but last I checked the Speaker doesn't vote unless there is a tie, which 6 counts all including the speaker

I can vote on anything, even if there is no tie.

This post was made possible by contributions from viewers like you. Thank You. ~Tapatalk~

Yes, therefor having the Speaker break the tie is somewhat impossible.

My suggestion for Speaker tie-breaker votes is as follows.

Code: [Select]

For: 3 votes (1 Speaker Vote)
Against: 3 votes

In this situation, the Speaker has the tie-breaker vote. He can either decide to grant victory to his choice (for) and allow
them to win despite not having a majority, or he can switch his vote to Against:

For: 2 votes
Against: 4 votes (1 Speaker Vote)

In which case, Against will obviously win due to a majority. If he decides to grant victory, it'll be:

For: 3 votes (1 Speaker Vote) +1 Tiebreak vote
Against: 3 votes

The Chair wishes to return to the original order of business.

This post was made possible by contributions from viewers like you. Thank You. ~Tapatalk~

There is already procedure for a tie vote. In the event of a tie, the bill automatically goes to the Overhusen.

This post was made possible by contributions from viewers like you. Thank You. ~Tapatalk~

I don't feel that's a good way of dealing with a tie vote, but okay. That leaves a lot of opportunity for contentious legislation to go through to second-stage regardless of not having a majority.

E: I'd also like it noted that this is an acceptable direction of debate on the topic of the Act. It's necessary to flesh out all the details, you can't just have a very narrow focus to the exclusion of other important details. If we made such alterations these are important considerations to make and where else to make them but here?