The Good Laws Take More Than One Look-Over Amendment

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

WHEREAS the whole reason the Hopper system of tossing bills around before they were Clarked was enacted so as
to catch any flaws or problems before the bill went to a vote;

AND WHEREAS a recent flurry of emergency PDs during the 50th Cosâ to amend basic problems in bills which have
already passed the Ziu shows that this is not working;

AND WHEREAS royal assent clearly only functions as an additional check when the King feels inclined to do so,
which seems extremely rare except when his powers and privileges are involved;

AND WHEREAS the proposer(s) are sick and tired of people voting against bills which they actually support on the basis of some tiny omission or error which could have been brought up in the Hopper phase, if anyone were paying attention;

AND WHEREAS it seems that people only pay attention when it comes to a vote;

AND WHEREAS in most other Legislature every bill must be read and voted on more than once, so that people who approve of the principle of the bill but not the details can vote for the first reading but then request amendments;

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Senäts and Cosâ of Talossa in Ziu assembled that the Organic Law X.5 be amended from the following:

Section 5

Except where otherwise provided in this Organic Law any bill which receives more "për" votes than "contrâ" votes in the Cosâ and the Senäts is considered to have been adopted by the Ziu. All other bills are considered to have been rejected. Any bill adopted by the Ziu is sent at once to the King for his assent.

Section 6

Every bill which shall have passed the Ziu shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the King. The King may sign such a Bill, in which case it shall immediately become law; or he may veto the Bill, in which case it shall be returned, with his objections, to the Ziu, which shall proceed to reconsider it in the next Clark. If the King neither signs nor vetoes a Bill before the last day of the month in which it was passed by the Ziu, he shall be deemed to have signed it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the Cosâ shall agree to pass the bill, with the approval of the Senäts, or the part of the bill objected to, it shall become a law over the objection of the King

to the following:

Section 5

i) Except where otherwise provided in this Organic Law any bill which receives more "për" votes than "contrâ" votes in the Cosâ and the Senäts may be resubmitted by its proposers for a subsequent Clark for a second reading, with or without further amendments as its proposer(s) shall decide. All other bills are considered to have been rejected.

ii) Any bill which receives more "për" votes than "contrâ" votes in the Cosâ and the Senäts on its second reading is considered to have been passed by the Ziu. All other bills are considered to have been rejected. Whereever this OrgLaw refers to a bill being "passed" by the Ziu, it shall refer to this second reading.

Section 6

Any bill passed by the Ziu is sent at once to the King for his assent. The King may sign such a Bill, in which case it shall immediately become law; or he may veto the Bill, in which case it shall be returned, with his objections, to the Ziu, which shall proceed to reconsider it in the next Clark. If the King neither signs nor vetoes a Bill before the last day of the month in which it was passed by the Ziu, he shall be deemed to have signed it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the Cosâ shall agree to pass the bill, with the approval of the Senäts, or the part of the bill objected to, it shall become a law over the objection of the King.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Viteu Marcianüs, co-sponsor?

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Yes! I like this!

[Eðo Grischun]

Yeah. This is what we need.

I, now, also think it's more important to do this than worry about Clark 6 bills on the first reading crossing over to the next Cosa.

[Ian Plätschisch]

This might just encourage people to wait until the second reading to actually read the bill. If that happened, then the errors in bills still would not be found in time to change them before the final vote.

Also, who decides whether or not the amendments to a bill made between readings make the bill so different as to be an entirely different bill?  Or would that be covered by H.11.3?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Aug 5, 2017 7:59:32 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

This might just encourage people to wait until the second reading to actually read the bill. If that happened, then the errors in bills still would not be found in time to change them before the final vote.

How do you think people who didn't care would vote on a first reading? For, or against?

Also, who decides whether or not the amendments to a bill made between readings make the bill so different as to be an entirely different bill?  Or would that be covered by H.11.3?

The latter.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Aug 5, 2017 17:32:10 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Aug 5, 2017 7:59:32 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

This might just encourage people to wait until the second reading to actually read the bill. If that happened, then the errors in bills still would not be found in time to change them before the final vote.

How do you think people who didn't care would vote on a first reading? For, or against?

Maybe I was a bit unclear.  When I said "actually read the bill," I meant "read the bill closely enough to catch errors."  Therefore, I don't think there is one single way in which people who didn't care to do that would vote, since people can come to different conclusions about a bill just by browsing it for content rather than closely inspecting it.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Aug 7, 2017 8:10:10 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Aug 5, 2017 17:32:10 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

How do you think people who didn't care would vote on a first reading? For, or against?

Maybe I was a bit unclear.  When I said "actually read the bill," I meant "read the bill closely enough to catch errors."  Therefore, I don't think there is one single way in which people who didn't care to do that would vote, since people can come to different conclusions about a bill just by browsing it for content rather than closely inspecting it.

I see what you're getting at. I distinguish being typos and substantive errors. Honestly, if a bill misspells something or has a typo, and it isn't caught, I don't see what the big deal is. The SOS can fix it and a quick bill next clark will fix it. 

But here's the thing, those minor typos can be fixed by the Second Reading. What I would say is this: if it is a minor typo that is missed both readings, then nothing we can do will fix that. So that isn't really the issue here - it's people not giving a bill a good substantive reading. Hence, by requiring two votes, it forces individuals to do a substantive reading the first time, because, well, if they just vote to advance, and then on the second reading they see something that, had they don't a substantive reading, requires them to change their vote, it becomes pretty obvious to the electorate that MZ is not doing their job. It hurts them and their party. 

I do not think that Miestrâ and I think this will completely fix the issue, but I would say I think this will help mitigate the issue. 

Finally, and I see this as a bonus, I do think we are too quick to pass legislation and requiring a second reading, just as a matter of procedure, seems sound. 

[Ian Plätschisch]

But if you think an MZ changing their vote would reflect poorly on them, then it follows that few MZs would do so, so wouldn't that make the second reading ineffective? (In that, an MZ would still vote for a flawed bill rather than admit their mistake)

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Aug 7, 2017 14:25:38 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

But if you think an MZ changing their vote would reflect poorly on them, then it follows that few MZs would do so, so wouldn't that make the second reading ineffective? (In that, an MZ would still vote for a flawed bill rather than admit their mistake)

I don't think an MZ changing their vote creates a presumption that reflects poorly on them. I think if they change their vote and give a reason that clearly indicates that this was obvious had they not done a proper reading the first time, that creates a presumption. 

[Eðo Grischun]

Yep. Changing votes between readings due to a change in material circumstances, in light of new information or a rational and reasoned change of heart or mind wouldn't necessarily reflect poorly on the MZ, while changing votes for purely partisan reasons, political tomfoolery or failure to read the meat of a bill properly will reflect badly.