StarDestroyer.Net BBS

There's still several people left to vote, however. I'm simply stating my case again, just to be on the safe side. When I campaign for a bill, I want to make damn sure it passes.

Assuming no further abstentions, the "Yes" side needs 3 more votes out of the 10 remaining to mathematically go over the top, while the "No" side needs 8. The "No" side would still need 6 even if there are no further "Yes" votes. So if we can wrangle up 3 yes votes, we'll be in good shape.

RedImperator wrote:Assuming no further abstentions, the "Yes" side needs 3 more votes out of the 10 remaining to mathematically go over the top, while the "No" side needs 8. The "No" side would still need 6 even if there are no further "Yes" votes. So if we can wrangle up 3 yes votes, we'll be in good shape.

The yes side is already over the top, Red, 26/12. Abstentions do not count toward the passage/failure of the proposal, only to the quorum, and the quorum has already been exceeded, as even for these votes it's only 50%.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Assuming no further abstentions, the "Yes" side needs 3 more votes out of the 10 remaining to mathematically go over the top, while the "No" side needs 8. The "No" side would still need 6 even if there are no further "Yes" votes. So if we can wrangle up 3 yes votes, we'll be in good shape.

The yes side is already over the top, Red, 26/12. Abstentions do not count toward the passage/failure of the proposal, only to the quorum, and the quorum has already been exceeded, as even for these votes it's only 50%.

According to Wilkens, this is a Category A vote, so a 60% supermajority is needed for passage.

RedImperator wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Assuming no further abstentions, the "Yes" side needs 3 more votes out of the 10 remaining to mathematically go over the top, while the "No" side needs 8. The "No" side would still need 6 even if there are no further "Yes" votes. So if we can wrangle up 3 yes votes, we'll be in good shape.

The yes side is already over the top, Red, 26/12. Abstentions do not count toward the passage/failure of the proposal, only to the quorum, and the quorum has already been exceeded, as even for these votes it's only 50%.

According to Wilkens, this is a Category A vote, so a 60% supermajority is needed for passage.

Correct, and it has one. 26 / 38 = 68%, that's what I've been saying all along.

By over the top, I mean "mathematically impossible to lose". I should have made that clearer. The point is somewhat moot, because the "no" side needs 6 more votes just to get to 40%, assuming no more "yes" votes or abstentions, and to my knowledge, we haven't had 47 total votes in any decision since...well, ever.

There are 41 current votes and there are 51 active voters. Now that being said since I have no abiolity to remove access or posting ability any "inactive" Senator is still capable of voting. This means (and I'm discounting Wayne here) there are actually 55 available votes not counting Rob W (Innerbrat, Stravo, and Zaia are all currently listed as "inactive" on my records and Mike is listed as inactive for other housekeeping reasons).

Thus with 14 outstanding votes there could, theoretically, be a swing to a 26-26 tie and a fialure of passage. The measures passes mathmatical certainty at 31 yes votes based on the active Senator list. Any point up until then we could see the measure fail.

I'd like to take a moment to campaign on behalf of this bill, so that any Senators out there who've not yet voted can consider the merits of the proposal.

We are continually in a "reaction mode" when it comes to problems here-- as it stands, "problems" have the initiative, and we can only react to them. That means that problems on the board typically have already started to do their damage by the time we get around to doing something about them. By the time we identify a problem, convene to discuss, vote, and take action, it is up to two weeks past the time damage has already been done.

A House of Commons will allow people on the board a place to point out problems as they coalesce. So far, heirarchy here is top-down and while I think we do the best we can and are fair, there is room for improvement. There is complaint and satire of the Senate for being too slow to act, or acting based on our perceptions of what's wrong rather than basing reactions on what the affected people feel is wrong. Again, a House of Commons will not only make policy here more efficient, but improve morale and allow us something very valuable: perspective.

Giving a voice to the citizens gives them a stake in overall success. So far, we have to rely on Private Messages (which really only reflect the points of view of that individual who took the initiative to PM) or wading through threads of political lampoon to figure out what's going wrong. I say vote YES on a House of Commons.

Another thing we could do, as well-- allow a public referendum on the idea. Hold an open vote in Off-Topic to gauge the interest the Commons have in a House of Commons...

Moved to the House of Commons as historical record. Thread locked to prevent tampering.