Okay, since both have commanded the support needed to become law then a head to head between the two should be held to decide which is to become law.

Isn't a competing bill scenario already a head-to-head? (Especially in situations where there were only two to begin with.)  

Perhaps he means (or could mean) have the two bills as a poll where legislators can choose either (or none) but not both?  

Yes, that is what I mean. CoA could not vote in case this leads to a tie and then they get a casting vote. 

I could see a structure where in case of competing bills: more than 2 make it past the vote.  In the case that there's one with a higher percentage than the other, the higher one becomes law.  In the case of tie, a second vote is commenced (CoA abstains from vote), for 3 days general amendments, 5 days constitutional amendments.  If both remain tied at the end of the vote, then CoA breaks the tie.  The one with the non-tied option is passed?

Reply

In general, I believe the Chair should be abstaining from voting regardless of whether the bill is a competing one or not. In which case, the Chair being the tie-breaking vote seems to be the simplest and most elegant solution for this dilemma.

Reply