Users browsing this thread:

Damination · 11-17-2020, 01:26 PM

(11-17-2020, 03:16 AM)Bleakfoot Wrote:
(11-16-2020, 06:54 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Eh. I mean, I think it's unlikely we'll have all the votes, but I could see potential benefits. I'll support.
Could someone outline what these potential benefits are? I'll be honest, I struggle to think of any - except that perhaps a bill might become law a day or two before it otherwise would have, which strikes me as marginal.

Either way I don't think there is any harm to passing or shelving this. It's likely just going to be down to personal preference among the legislators. One can be against such if they feel it's such a rarity occasion it's in effect impractical or one can be for it because it makes the process more efficient in the actual case such a situation actually arises.

For me, I just personally side towards efficiency despite the chances of it happening. I would suggest that one decide based on their preference here.

***Tsunamy*** · 11-18-2020, 02:26 PM

(11-17-2020, 03:16 AM)Bleakfoot Wrote:
(11-16-2020, 06:54 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Eh. I mean, I think it's unlikely we'll have all the votes, but I could see potential benefits. I'll support.
Could someone outline what these potential benefits are? I'll be honest, I struggle to think of any - except that perhaps a bill might become law a day or two before it otherwise would have, which strikes me as marginal.

I could potentially see cases where there's a massive security or governmental needs where this might be useful. As Bel said, it would be next to impossible to do, but could be helpful under the right circumstances. Like Moon, I don't see an issue having it in our backpocket, just in case.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 11-18-2020, 06:55 PM

I’m not exaggerating when I say that in my near decade in TSP I don’t think we’ve ever had an occasion where every single member of the Assembly voted. I’m not seeing anyone disputing that.

Considering that, are people really proposing adopting a provision which we literally will never be able to use?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 11-18-2020, 06:55 PM by Belschaft.)

**Farengeto** · 11-18-2020, 08:04 PM

The moderately more useful but less wieldy alternative would be one for ones with an overwhelming majority. Like if 60% of all Legislators already voted Aye on a constitutional amendment it passes immediately.

But even that will be rarely used at best, so I'm dubious of its worthwhileness.

Damination · 11-18-2020, 10:57 PM

(11-18-2020, 06:55 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I’m not exaggerating when I say that in my near decade in TSP I don’t think we’ve ever had an occasion where every single member of the Assembly voted. I’m not seeing anyone disputing that.

Considering that, are people really proposing adopting a provision which we literally will never be able to use?

Literally never is basically stating impossible, which is not factually correct. It doesn't even matter whether it's likely or unlikely, possible or impossible. What matters is if people think it's useless then it is, if people think it's efficient in the offset chance a rare situation happens then it is.

What are you afraid of? Everyone except a handful disagreeing with your take of the two? I wouldn't care if it goes to vote and it's shot down. Doesn't bother me. Why do you care?

***sandaoguo*** · 11-19-2020, 10:56 AM

I do think it's functionally impossible for this to ever actually be triggered. We are far too lax with our activity requirements for us to ever be in a situation where every legislator votes. Something that has a less than 0.00001% chance of happening is functionally the same thing as having no chance of ever happening.

In any case, changing your vote on an Assembly bill or nomination is permitted at any time during the voting period, and so I don't think closing votes early is actually a good idea.

**Farengeto** · 11-19-2020, 03:40 PM

(11-19-2020, 10:56 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I do think it's functionally impossible for this to ever actually be triggered. We are far too lax with our activity requirements for us to ever be in a situation where every legislator votes. Something that has a less than 0.00001% chance of happening is functionally the same thing as having no chance of ever happening.

In any case, changing your vote on an Assembly bill or nomination is permitted at any time during the voting period, and so I don't think closing votes early is actually a good idea.

Yeah, that's the biggest issue with even my suggestion. I think closing early under any circumstance just causes too many issues.

Nat · 11-19-2020, 06:13 PM

(11-18-2020, 02:26 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: I could potentially see cases where there's a massive security or governmental needs where this might be useful. As Bel said, it would be next to impossible to do, but could be helpful under the right circumstances. Like Moon, I don't see an issue having it in our backpocket, just in case.

The Cabinet can issue Executive Orders which have the full force of law until the Assembly has finished voting to keep or stike them (The Charter: Article VI, Sections 15 & 16). Additionally, the CRS is pretty much written a blank cheque during a coup d'état (The Charter: Article IX, Section 10) so would not need to worry about waiting for the Assembly to act. Because of both of these considerations, I am not convinced that this supposed benefit you stated would functionally add anything to the legislation.

I don't think we should be adding things to our laws which have minimal benefit and have a very low likelihood of occurring. It will just make our already considerable body of law even bulkier. Not to mention that this proposal could create a whole bunch of legal headaches if a law is passed but it turns out that a mistake was made and a single legislator was forgotten (all of a sudden this law which had to be rushed through could be struck down due to procedural irregularity). While I think that Far's suggestion is better, it has the same minimal benefits (albeit may be activated more often) and drawbacks alongside complicating any activity tally: would an expedited vote deadline count for a missed vote? All in all, I don't believe either proposal brings any real benefit to the table and both have some risks and unintended consequences.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

***Tsunamy*** · 11-19-2020, 10:39 PM

(11-19-2020, 06:13 PM)Nat Wrote:
(11-18-2020, 02:26 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: I could potentially see cases where there's a massive security or governmental needs where this might be useful. As Bel said, it would be next to impossible to do, but could be helpful under the right circumstances. Like Moon, I don't see an issue having it in our backpocket, just in case.

The Cabinet can issue Executive Orders which have the full force of law until the Assembly has finished voting to keep or stike them (The Charter: Article VI, Sections 15 & 16). Additionally, the CRS is pretty much written a blank cheque during a coup d'état (The Charter: Article IX, Section 10) so would not need to worry about waiting for the Assembly to act. Because of both of these considerations, I am not convinced that this supposed benefit you stated would functionally add anything to the legislation.

I don't think we should be adding things to our laws which have minimal benefit and have a very low likelihood of occurring. It will just make our already considerable body of law even bulkier. Not to mention that this proposal could create a whole bunch of legal headaches if a law is passed but it turns out that a mistake was made and a single legislator was forgotten (all of a sudden this law which had to be rushed through could be struck down due to procedural irregularity). While I think that Far's suggestion is better, it has the same minimal benefits (albeit may be activated more often) and drawbacks alongside complicating any activity tally: would an expedited vote deadline count for a missed vote? All in all, I don't believe either proposal brings any real benefit to the table and both have some risks and unintended consequences.

Honestly ya'll, I have less than interest in having this debate, I just generally make it a habit to support new ideas that I think are harmless. And, if the biggest knock against this proposal is that an extra, largely unused section in article 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act is going to make our laws too bloated ... well that just seems pretty harmless to me.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 11-20-2020, 02:16 PM

I think it'd quite wrong to say that it is harmless Tsu. Every time we add a new procedure or protocol to our laws they get longer and more complicated, which makes them harder to understand and interpret. We also establish precedents that effect future decisions and how other parts of the law must be interpreted. This is burdensome for legislators who have to read and understand the laws, and especially for us on the court who have to sometimes reconcile numerous different articles and clauses.

To make this all as easy as possible we need to write laws sparingly. Just because we can legislate on a particular topic doesn't mean that we should. Complicating our laws for no good reason by adopting a provision that we can't use is the height of folly.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 11-20-2020, 06:15 PM by Belschaft.)