53rd Cosa, 1st Clark - May 2019 - Voting

[Glüc da Dhi]

The June 2019 Clark is now here.


www.talossa.ca/files/clark.php?cosa=53&clark=1

Or here: www.talossa.ca/files/print_clark.php (this is the printer friendly version)


In PDF Form (which was made from the print_clark.php page):

www.talossa.ca/files/clarks/May2019Clark.pdf

or can vote online here: www.talossa.ca/files/clark_vote.php

Or in this thread, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

Senators are allowed to create a single thread in the Senate chamber to post all of the Senate Votes that are not cast in this thread. Any votes not posted either using the form above, the current thread or the Senate thread might be ignored and void. Please do not vote by email or private messages.

When you vote, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Please do not vote by email: We've had problems with email votes being caught in the spam filter.

All nominated Cosa Members and Senators will be emailed today.

Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State

[Glüc da Dhi]

Note that 53RZ1 requires a 2/3rd supermajority in the Senate, not a simple majority. (This is not an option in the database yet so it is temporarily listed incorrectly).

[Alejo Fernández]

Do i vote?

[Ian Plätschisch]

May 1, 2019 10:18:00 GMT -6 Alejo Fernández said:

Do i vote?

No (to avoid a long explanation in this thread I've written more in your immigration thread).

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

As to RZ1 - The Fantastic Fusion of Fiova and Florencia Bill, I vote per. I sympathize with concerns about contiguity, but as a neo-derivativist, I think we should act as though we are a real country. I don't think the two Fs particularly need to be adjacent for any real purpose.

As to RZ2 - The Civil Service (Commissioner Abolition) Bill, I vote per. I maintain that the whole civil service would probably be better-replaced with simply appointing folks to ministries to do this work, but if it must continue to exist, then I am happy to see it become less burdensome.

As to RZ3 - The Hopper Needs a Sheriff Bill, I reserve my vote for the moment, as I am currently engaged in discussion on its merits and don't know where I'll end up.

As to RZ4 - The Holidays and Observances Amendment Act, I vote contra. The presence of several additional holidays poses no threat or burden, and they offer possible unknown opportunities for cultural exploration or events in the future. If the Government doesn't wish to mark some with celebrations or observations, then they need not.

As to RZ5 - The Parliamentary Contact Info Accessibility Act, I vote per.

As to RZ6 - The Trapped Dandelions Act, I vote per.

As to RZ7 - Mega-Amendment, I vote per. We need to clean up the holes in the OrgLaw and we can also move some of the discussion of national symbols to protected statutory law. There might be concerns about further OrgLaw reforms, but it's actually quite easy to write bills with triggering clauses that deal with this.

As to RZ8 - The Witt Moderation Act, I vote per. It's short and simple and solves pretty much all of our Witt moderation problems, both ideological and practical.

As to RZ9 - The Nationalisation of a Peculiar Wittenberg Act, I abstain. I think it's a great bill in a lot of ways, but it's also fairly complicated and is outright incompatible with my own bill on the matter. Love you though, Etho!

As to the VoC, I vote non. It has become convention that members of the opposition now do this, invariably, so I suppose I will go along with it.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

This is not a formal vote, but I will be recommending to my party that we vote CONTRA on RZ7, as it would pre-empt the Still Into This Amendment, which has broad support from parties supporting 3/4 of the Cosa. That amendment's proponent, Senator Plätschisch, was dissuaded from putting it forward on the first Clark precisely because "Sir Alexandreu will make huge political capital of us trying to rush this through". Considering that Sir Alexandreu is attempting to "gazump" this amendment, this appears to have been a miscalculation.

Also I would recommend CONTRA on both RZ8 and RZ9, regardless of their merits, as they pre-empt the imminent Government decision on how, when and why to set up Wittenberg-13. In this era when we have a new government which is proactively planning for Talossa's future, it is inappropriate for members of opposition parties to attempt to make Government policy via legislation, no matter how well-intentioned.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

There is zero reason that your amendment couldn't still go through. Zero. It would need slight changes to account for my bill, and that is all. I even specifically addressed this in my vote.

Edit: I also know that your amendment's sponsor has explicitly said that he didn't Clark his bill because it wasn't ready, not because of me. Not every disagreement or inconvenience is an attack.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

May 1, 2019 15:12:21 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

As to the VoC, I vote non. It has become convention that members of the opposition now do this, invariably, so I suppose I will go along with it.

The slightly peeved tone of this comment that people who don't support the government generally vote against it remaining in office is kind of baffling to me. I would only suggest that:

a) if the RUMP members wish to support the current Government, we would welcome that;
b) but more seriously, the fact that it is impossible to abstain on the VoC is a ridiculous facet of our current constitution that I want to repeal.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

May 1, 2019 23:05:56 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

May 1, 2019 15:12:21 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

As to the VoC, I vote non. It has become convention that members of the opposition now do this, invariably, so I suppose I will go along with it.

The slightly peeved tone of this comment that people who don't support the government generally vote against it remaining in office is kind of baffling to me. I would only suggest that:

a) if the RUMP members wish to support the current Government, we would welcome that;
b) but more seriously, the fact that it is impossible to abstain on the VoC is a ridiculous facet of our current constitution that I want to repeal.

I'm not peeved, just resigned to a shift in our politics.

Also, it's generally not a good idea to have discussions in the voting thread because it makes the job of secretary of state a little harder. Maybe if you want to continue discussions about any of these things, we could open up a thread or comment on a related thread?

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

RZ1- Per
RZ2- Per
RZ3- Per
RZ4- Per
RZ5- Per
RZ6- Per
RZ7- Contra
RZ8- Contra
RZ9- Contra

VOC- Uc

[Eðo Grischun]

RZ1 - Per. Arguments about contiguity should be outright dismissed. However, even if I agreed with such arguments, or even if I were to agree with any other argument against this bill, I would still vote per. When a bill such as this, that asks us to make a decision in respect to the will of the provinces, comes before the Ziu, I will always vote in the affirmative. I cannot in good conscience stand in the way of provinces wishing to exercise their right to self determination. It vexes me that the question even needs to come to the Ziu.

RZ2 - Per.

RZ3 - Con. The Bill argues that "the Mençéi has established good rules for debate among Senators, but nothing similar exists for the Cosa as yet", and then moves on to give power to the Túischac'h over the Hopper. Surely, if the above quoted WHEREAS statement is to have an equalization then that equalization would take place in the Cosa chambers and not the Hopper? Point two, the bill states "In the absence of the Túischac'h from the Hopper, the Mençéi shall perform these duties." I'm not sure when this would apply. Does this mean the Mençéi can only police the Hopper whenever the office of the Túischac'h is vacant or does it mean whenever the Túischac'h has failed to appear for a couple of days/months/what-have-you? The clause is too vague. Finally, Article IX, Section 1 states that the SoS shall administer the Hopper. I'm not sure all these things fit together as presented.

RZ4 - Con.

RZ5 - Per.

RZ6 - Per.

RZ7 - Per.

RZ8 - Con. I don't disagree with the principle argument this bill attempts to resolve. I do disagree with the mechanism being employed. This bill basically says "We, the Ziu, demand that the Prime Minister negotiates a deal and then come back to the Ziu with that deal for us to vote on". This smells familiar to me. Pretty sure the UK has been down this road recently. We could end up locked into a cycle of negotiation followed by rejected bill followed by renegotiation followed by rejected bill followed by renegotiation followed by... What's to say the Prime Minister's red lines won't be forever at odds with the King's red lines? This is a scenario we are witnessing with the UK government. We shouldn't pass a bill that simply sends the PM off to negotiate a deal to be voted on at a later date; we should just come up with the bill to vote on.

RZ9 - Con. I put it forward because the question should rightly be put before the Ziu. I understand that the government will be bringing a bill forward shortly that should move us forward on a definitive path in regards to Telecommuna and Wittenberg and all associated topics such as wittiquette, ownership status of national forums, etc.


VoC, I vote non. It makes perfect sense to me that the opposition should be voting against the government. It also makes perfect sense that we shouldn't be holding a VoC every month just for the sake of it and that a VoC should be a triggerable event. I look forward to seeing a bill that changes how we perform VsoC.

[King John]

May 1, 2019 23:05:56 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

the fact that it is impossible to abstain on the VoC is a ridiculous facet of our current constitution that I want to repeal.

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree. There are good reasons why someone might want to abstain, and I can't think of a single good reason why he shouldn't be allowed to.

— John R

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

RZ1- Per
RZ2- Per
RZ3- Per
RZ4- Per
RZ5- Per
RZ6- Per
RZ7- Contra
RZ8- Contra
RZ9- Contra

VOC- Uc

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

May 1, 2019 15:12:21 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

As to RZ1 - The Fantastic Fusion of Fiova and Florencia Bill, I vote per. I sympathize with concerns about contiguity, but as a neo-derivativist, I think we should act as though we are a real country. I don't think the two Fs particularly need to be adjacent for any real purpose.

As to the VoC, I vote non. It has become convention that members of the opposition now do this, invariably, so I suppose I will go along with it.

This has been the convention for twenty years or more. :-)

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

May 1, 2019 15:46:14 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

This is not a formal vote, but I will be recommending to my party that we vote CONTRA on RZ7, as it would pre-empt the Still Into This Amendment, which has broad support from parties supporting 3/4 of the Cosa. That amendment's proponent, Senator Plätschisch, was dissuaded from putting it forward on the first Clark precisely because "Sir Alexandreu will make huge political capital of us trying to rush this through". Considering that Sir Alexandreu is attempting to "gazump" this amendment, this appears to have been a miscalculation.

Also I would recommend CONTRA on both RZ8 and RZ9, regardless of their merits, as they pre-empt the imminent Government decision on how, when and why to set up Wittenberg-13. In this era when we have a new government which is proactively planning for Talossa's future, it is inappropriate for members of opposition parties to attempt to make Government policy via legislation, no matter how well-intentioned.

Not Witt '13'. Thirteen is a most-unlucky number, and the Republic had two Witts 'XII' and 'XIIb'. :-)