 |
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001 time: 05:23
|
|
Since it should be clear from the threads anyway...I too voted.
Sean.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002 time: 22:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by notyoueither
Ahem. The poll for quorum has no bearing on who is, or is not a senator.
The poll for quorum was intended by the writers of the NewCon (if I am not mistaken) to be a way for the Senate to overcome the obstacle posed by the Trip-Ninot election. Many, many people voted. Many more than ever participate in other ways.
Hense being able to meet quorum to pass laws during that term would have been very, very difficult.
So, the writers of the New Con (in their infinite wisdom ) formulated a way for the Senate to redefine quorum seperately from the number of voters in an unusually high turn out Presidential election. That same principle might apply to an acclamation, such as we have. Maybe only 10 people bother to vote for the human over the banana. Then a quorum call would be a good thing. Except i think a lot of people have plonked a choice down in that poll. So is a call for quorum this term necessary?
There it is. Read into it what you will. |
Would not the establishment of this 'call for quorum' need to be done through the passing of a bill, to establish exactly what that call should be, however, and not simply one senator posting whatever he thinks it should be? Even then, it would not be a 'current senators' list. It whould be a number, not a list of names, for quorum
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002 time: 05:23
|
|
You are right UnO, the con con said :
-------
(iii) The Senate has the power to modify the quorum requirements or to perform a census without amending the Constitution.
-------
And such a bill cannot result in a poll before the Senate exists.
But in fact, there is no basis to question the quorum resulting from the current election.
Last edited by DAVOUT on 16-11-2002 at 03:43
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002 time: 00:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Would not the establishment of this 'call for quorum' need to be done through the passing of a bill, to establish exactly what that call should be, however, and not simply one senator posting whatever he thinks it should be? Even then, it would not be a 'current senators' list. It whould be a number, not a list of names, for quorum |
I would believe, yes it would require such a bill. Since no such bill has been passed, Unortho is right and this thread is quite pointless.
I happen to greatly agree with Unorthodox's larger criticism of having such a means for establish quorum as well. As I argued when the NewCon came out, one of my favorite aspects was that the document explicitly enshrined the concept of One Citizen (anyone who signs up) = One Senator.
Now, I recognize that establishing a lower quorum number does not deny some citizens their rights to be Senators. However, I believe that the current baseline number of ~50-60 that we're seeing as turnout in these elections should work as a number for establishing the approximate active population. Therefore, we have no need to establish an alternate means at this time.
That's all.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CTR
|
|
::delurking::
I voted.
::relurking::
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|