(Dismissed) Voting Period Act

View previous topic View next topic Go down

(Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Arveyres on Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:00 am

Marquette and I have recently noticed that not all members of the SC have been voting on the bills, yet they are passing. This is really annoying me because I sometimes do not get a chance to express my opinion and possibly change other's votes.

I propose that:

!) To ensure that all SC nations receive adequate time to debate and make final votes on the bill, that a voting period will be 72 hours after the posting time.

2) All nations must state that their vote is final. If they still want to be able to change their vote, they can state that it is an unfinalised vote.

3) If a nation votes, but forgets to state the type of vote before the end of the voting period, their vote will be counted as final.

4) Any ties will be broken by the President, not the Founder.
avatar
Arveyres
Potential World Power

Posts : 637
Join date : 2013-02-09
Age : 19
Location : Saint Paul, MN, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=holy_patrician_states

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) on Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:09 am

Marquette votes in FAVOR of this resolution.
avatar
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 18
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Aloia on Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:52 am

Aloia votes in favor of the proposal.
avatar
Aloia
Potential World Power

Posts : 536
Join date : 2013-02-22
Location : Kansas, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=aloia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Dromoda on Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:34 pm

what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
avatar
Dromoda
Potential World Power

Posts : 783
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 22
Location : Kyongdong,Chengdao, Dromoda

Back to top Go down

Eurussian Position

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:41 pm

Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Dromoda on Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:55 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
avatar
Dromoda
Potential World Power

Posts : 783
Join date : 2013-02-06
Age : 22
Location : Kyongdong,Chengdao, Dromoda

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) on Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:16 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
avatar
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 18
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

Eurussian Position

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:20 pm

Dromoda wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) on Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:25 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.
How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.
avatar
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 18
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

Eurussian Position

Post  Great Eurussia on Wed Oct 02, 2013 11:31 pm

Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.
How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.
The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Arveyres on Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:37 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.
How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.
The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.
If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.
avatar
Arveyres
Potential World Power

Posts : 637
Join date : 2013-02-09
Age : 19
Location : Saint Paul, MN, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=holy_patrician_states

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  United States of Europe on Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:49 pm

We are voting AGAINST this proposal for the moment.
As we already know, not all countries that are part of the Security Council are active.
And, because of this inactivity, the timing of vote laws lengthen greatly.
For some proposals that I have made ​​in the past legislatures, due to the inactivity of the members voting times have gone beyond two weeks.
If this law is approved as it stands now, due to the inactivity of some members of the Security Council, the timing of voting would exceed the limit of 72 hours.
So there is a real risk that the bills, which, however, have had some success among the active members of the Security Council, are rejected due to the inactivity of certain nations.
I do not know if my explanation is clear.
We therefore ask the Holy Patrician States to clarify this doubt.
avatar
United States of Europe
Potential World Power

Posts : 527
Join date : 2013-02-06
Location : Rome, Italy

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Marquette (of Pacific) on Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:53 pm

United States of Europe wrote:We are voting AGAINST this proposal for the moment.
As we already know, not all countries that are part of the Security Council are active.
And, because of this inactivity, the timing of vote laws lengthen greatly.
For some proposals that I have made ​​in the past legislatures, due to the inactivity of the members voting times have gone beyond two weeks.
If this law is approved as it stands now, due to the inactivity of some members of the Security Council, the timing of voting would exceed the limit of 72 hours.
So there is a real risk that the bills, which, however, have had some success among the active members of the Security Council, are rejected due to the inactivity of certain nations.
I do not know if my explanation is clear.
We therefore ask the Holy Patrician States to clarify this doubt.
Then only nations who are online very frequently should be elected into the Security Council. If you can't prioritize Nationstates when you are in the Security Council then you should not be in the SC to begin with. Just saying.
avatar
Marquette (of Pacific)
Potential World Power

Posts : 597
Join date : 2013-04-16
Age : 18
Location : Snowy Minnesota

Back to top Go down

Eurussian Position

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:06 pm

Holy Patrician States wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.
How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.
The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.
If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.
Eurussia refutes this as there is no way the President could break the tie since the soul of this proposal is the 72 hours voting period. If there is a tie, in which you will never know until the 72 hour lapses, technically, a proposal hasn't passed. If HPS is saying that the President can break a tie after the 72 hour period, what if the President himself delays breaking the tie? The purpose of this proposal is definitely obsolete then.
And to remind the proponent, let us say, only 2 out of 7 members voted after the time lapses, and there is a tie. Assuming the President has broken it and made the proposal either passed or rejected, does this scenario mean that the 3 nations (including the tie breaking vote of the President) voted could pass a proposal?
Will the above scenario blatantly violate the more superior constitutional rule that a simple majority of ALL the members of the Security Council is necessary to pass a proposal into law? 
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Arveyres on Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:11 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Holy Patrician States wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.
How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.
The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.
If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.
Eurussia refutes this as there is no way the President could break the tie since the soul of this proposal is the 72 hours voting period. If there is a tie, in which you will never know until the 72 hour lapses, technically, a proposal hasn't passed. If HPS is saying that the President can break a tie after the 72 hour period, what if the President himself delays breaking the tie? The purpose of this proposal is definitely obsolete then.
And to remind the proponent, let us say, only 2 out of 7 members voted after the time lapses, and there is a tie. Assuming the President has broken it and made the proposal either passed or rejected, does this scenario mean that the 3 nations (including the tie breaking vote of the President) voted could pass a proposal?
Will the above scenario blatantly violate the more superior constitutional rule that a simple majority of ALL the members of the Security Council is necessary to pass a proposal into law? 
Pretty much.
avatar
Arveyres
Potential World Power

Posts : 637
Join date : 2013-02-09
Age : 19
Location : Saint Paul, MN, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=holy_patrician_states

Back to top Go down

Eurussian News

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:15 pm

Holy Patrician States wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Holy Patrician States wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.
How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.
The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.
If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.
Eurussia refutes this as there is no way the President could break the tie since the soul of this proposal is the 72 hours voting period. If there is a tie, in which you will never know until the 72 hour lapses, technically, a proposal hasn't passed. If HPS is saying that the President can break a tie after the 72 hour period, what if the President himself delays breaking the tie? The purpose of this proposal is definitely obsolete then.
And to remind the proponent, let us say, only 2 out of 7 members voted after the time lapses, and there is a tie. Assuming the President has broken it and made the proposal either passed or rejected, does this scenario mean that the 3 nations (including the tie breaking vote of the President) voted could pass a proposal?
Will the above scenario blatantly violate the more superior constitutional rule that a simple majority of ALL the members of the Security Council is necessary to pass a proposal into law? 
Pretty much.
Eurussia, then, formally suggests HPS to simply rewrite the proposal into stating that all proposals must be voted within a 72 hour period or else automatically dismissed.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Arveyres on Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:18 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Holy Patrician States wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Holy Patrician States wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Marquette (of Pacific) wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Dromoda wrote:what if someone vote's something and forgets to say that that is his final vote. does the vote still count?
Eurussia believes that stating whether a vote is final or not is completely irrelevant and useless since the period of 72 hours will be the basis and life of a proposal.
is it possible to get more time?
Eurussia believes that 72 hours or 3 days voting period is reasonable as we support the objective of this proposal. However, we are withholding our vote as we are against including any provision on stating that a vote is final or not and worst, mentioning the Founder as it is discriminatory as stating the President to break the tie is sufficient enough on our belief.
How is it discriminatory? They were specifying that the President should replace the Founder on ending a vote.
The Founder is only granted de facto membership to the Security Council and the elected President is more superior than the Founder in the body. And also, in a 7 member body, a tie is impossible.
If only six were to vote in a period of 72 hours, the President would break the tie.
Eurussia refutes this as there is no way the President could break the tie since the soul of this proposal is the 72 hours voting period. If there is a tie, in which you will never know until the 72 hour lapses, technically, a proposal hasn't passed. If HPS is saying that the President can break a tie after the 72 hour period, what if the President himself delays breaking the tie? The purpose of this proposal is definitely obsolete then.
And to remind the proponent, let us say, only 2 out of 7 members voted after the time lapses, and there is a tie. Assuming the President has broken it and made the proposal either passed or rejected, does this scenario mean that the 3 nations (including the tie breaking vote of the President) voted could pass a proposal?
Will the above scenario blatantly violate the more superior constitutional rule that a simple majority of ALL the members of the Security Council is necessary to pass a proposal into law? 
Pretty much.
Eurussia, then, formally suggests HPS to simply rewrite the proposal into stating that all proposals must be voted within a 72 hour period or else automatically dismissed.
We abide, but we cannot reconstruct it until later today.
avatar
Arveyres
Potential World Power

Posts : 637
Join date : 2013-02-09
Age : 19
Location : Saint Paul, MN, USA

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=holy_patrician_states

Back to top Go down

Dismissed

Post  Great Eurussia on Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:57 am



OOC: As the new Council takes office, this proposal is dismissed.
avatar
Great Eurussia
Superpower

Posts : 5336
Join date : 2013-02-04

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=great_eurussia

Back to top Go down

Re: (Dismissed) Voting Period Act

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum