Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Jul 8, 2008 12:22:53 GMT -6
I agree with Sir Cresti that there is far too much existing untapped opportunity to share Cosa seats. We have 200 to go around, and currently barely 10% of that number of actual legislators. I don't see a need to have 14 Senators in a nation of 120 people, a good handful of them not even being voting age, and a very healthy percentage being uninterested in politics enough to not even bother voting -- frankly, it's still hard enough getting seven of them.
Hooligan
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 8, 2008 12:55:26 GMT -6
What if instead of a 66%, you changed that to 75 %?
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Jul 8, 2008 14:08:29 GMT -6
If you take 75%, it then becomes: 38RZ6 The Secret Ballot Investigation Act 38RZ7 The Legal Classification of Talossans Act 38RZ17 The Put People In Their Zones Act 38RZ15 The Men in Black II Act
Of those, MIB II was not killed in the Cosa.
75% is much better- the logical bills would pass through with a simple Cosâ vote and the debatable bills would still require both.
However, is this even organic?? The OrgLaw says that the Senäts has to vote and approve bills as well I do believe. How do we organically make this?
Perhaps, if the bill reaches a 75% approval in the Cosâ, the Senäts could issue a dictate or something similar saying something like "We, the Senators of Talossa recognize the validity of the Cosâ's actions in approving X bill, X bill, and X bill with a 75% majourity approval and blah blah blah."
Article V Section 7 reads "The Senäts may also create Senatorial commissions according to guidelines which are to be defined by law. "
I couldn't find anything on Senatorial commissions, but perhaps this is what could make the 75% approval involve both bodies of the Ziu??
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 8, 2008 14:16:11 GMT -6
This might bring up what Cresti mentioned earlier (at one time) .
The Cosa and the Senate vote on bills sequentially, not on the same Cosa. They ( the Senate) vote up or down on bills that passed in a previous Clark via a simple majority, and those that passed the super-majority they put their greasy thumbprint Mark of Agreement on?
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Jul 8, 2008 14:18:29 GMT -6
If it doesn't require that then no, but I don't want to take away from the Senäts duties or process too much.
I think it'd still be best to involve both parties (i.e. Cosâ and Senäts) even with the super-majourity.
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Jul 8, 2008 14:19:53 GMT -6
Ugh, trying to to edit posts in here any more *shakes fist at whoever thought of that.*
To answer your question Capt.- no the don't need to "approve" anything...they just make a statement recognising the validity and organic-icity of the super-majourity.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 8, 2008 16:23:47 GMT -6
However, is this even organic?? It would definitely require an OrgLaw amendment to have any force. Another possibility (not advocating anything here, just pointing out ideas) is what Owen hinted at some time ago: passing a Talossan equivalent of the British Parliament Acts. In the old days, an act of Parliament used to require the support of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before it could be presented to the King or Queen for royal assent. The Parliament Act of 1911 changed this to say that a bill could be presented for royal assent, against the opposition of Lords, if the bill had passed Commons three times over the course of at least two years. For a Talossan equivalent, we might say that a bill must be passed by the Cosa and Senäts, or passed in identical form by two consecutive Cosas (with a general election in between).
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Jul 8, 2008 20:37:19 GMT -6
Hmm...
I wish more people would speak up on this bill.
I, personally, like Capt. Mick's idea of a super majourity. If doubling the size of the Senäts is virtually impossible the super majourity (of 75%) would certainly give the Cosâ more of a say in things.
It still allows Senäts participation, especially on the very controversial bills.
I'll look into the OrgLaw tommorow and try to get some answers and see what passages would need to be changed to get this enacted.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jul 8, 2008 21:17:17 GMT -6
Another one will bite the dust if this makes a Clark.
The reasons are numerous and already articulated by several other people. And the reasons/replies were spell checked so that means they're correct.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 8, 2008 21:44:32 GMT -6
subtle, Brad, subtle.
Like a train wreck.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 9, 2008 8:24:16 GMT -6
I, personally, like Capt. Mick's idea of a super majourity. If doubling the size of the Senäts is virtually impossible the super majourity (of 75%) would certainly give the Cosâ more of a say in things. The problem with a supermajority loophole is that in the Cosa, bills either get a supermajority or they don't pass. Every bill that passed this Cosa got 75% or more. So essentially, the effect of your proposal would be to eliminate the Senäts in all but name. Why would anyone want to serve in such a body?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Jul 9, 2008 10:29:26 GMT -6
I, personally, like Capt. Mick's idea of a super majourity. If doubling the size of the Senäts is virtually impossible the super majourity (of 75%) would certainly give the Cosâ more of a say in things. The problem with a supermajority loophole is that in the Cosa, bills either get a supermajority or they don't pass. Every bill that passed this Cosa got 75% or more. So essentially, the effect of your proposal would be to eliminate the Senäts in all but name. Why would anyone want to serve in such a body? Just as a side note - do you think that the bills that are getting a "SuperMajority" (either up or down) is because of the current dominance of one political party ? If one party doesn't hold the simple majority of the seats, do you think this might change?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 9, 2008 10:45:30 GMT -6
Just as a side note - do you think that the bills that are getting a "SuperMajority" (either up or down) is because of the current dominance of one political party ? If one party doesn't hold the simple majority of the seats, do you think this might change? Very good point. I'm sure that explains part of it, but it can't explain all of it, because some of the bills getting 75%+ in the Cosa are minority bills, and some of the bills getting killed in the Senäts are RUMP bills. But the basic gist of your point is well-taken: that the voting results are the results of a certain partisan balance of the Ziu, and will not necessarily hold into the future. And that is probably more true of the Senäts than the Cosa. Which is something to keep in mind before enacting permanent fixes to problems that may be temporary.
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Jul 9, 2008 10:53:36 GMT -6
The problem with a supermajority loophole is that in the Cosa, bills either get a supermajority or they don't pass. Every bill that passed this Cosa got 75% or more. So essentially, the effect of your proposal would be to eliminate the Senäts in all but name. Why would anyone want to serve in such a body? Yessir, I commented about that earlier.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 9, 2008 11:27:14 GMT -6
Yessir, I commented about that earlier. I thought your earlier comment was that the 75% supermajority threshold "still allows Senäts participation." My point is that it would not allow for any Senäts participation at all for any of the 19 bills voted on so far in this Cosa term. If you look back farther, the picture is (slightly) brighter. It would allow the Senäts to participate in voting on: 2 out of 17 bills on the 37th Cosa 0 out of 19 bills in the 36th Cosa 5 out of 38 bills in the 35th Cosa
|
|