55th Cosa 1st Clark Voting and Discussion thread

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Order Order!

I call to order the first seating of the 55th Cosa.

For ease of discussion and moderation please indicate the bill in question OR it RZ number.

Firstly I wish to call The Seneschal ( @Miestră Schivă, UrN ) to the dispatch box for there opening statements, followed by a official retort from the Opposition (preferably from a member of the chamber) with a retort. Any further discussion is invited after these opening statements. Please address each other though the chair.
Voting Is Open, but I encourage the honorable members of the chamber to hear opening statements.

(I am trialing this format of discussion, none of the above is Organically official, feedback welcomed but preferably privately, encouraging pomp, ceremony and measured arguments )

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

Order Order!

I call to order the first seating of the 55th Cosa.

For ease of discussion and moderation please indicate the bill in question OR it RZ number.

Firstly I wish to call The Seneschal ( @Miestră Schivă, UrN ) to the dispatch box for there opening statements, followed by a official retort from the Opposition (preferably from a member of the chamber) with a retort. Any further discussion is invited after these opening statements. Please address each other though the chair.
Voting Is Open, but I encourage the honorable members of the chamber to hear opening statements.

(I am trialing this format of discussion, none of the above is Organically official, feedback welcomed but preferably privately, encouraging pomp, ceremony and measured arguments )

Ehem
*Cough*
@Miestră Schivă, UrN
@Ian Plätschisch

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but this procedure is entirely new to me, and I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do.

Except to say: "Vote PËR on everything on this Clark". Grült méirçi.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

I'm sorry, Mr Speaker, but this procedure is entirely new to me, and I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do.

Except to say: "Vote PËR on everything on this Clark". Grült méirçi.

Your welcome to make a speech as to why the honarable members should vote PER, but that's completely optional.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

In light of no discussion as yet in the chamber I am inclined to abstain entirely as I have no way to gauge the majority and I wish to stand by my promise I made during my election.

If the opposition wish to make a statement or begin a discussion I may be swayed to vote.

[Placiej]

RZ1 - PER
RZ2 - PER
RZ3 - CON
RZ4 - PER
RZ5 - PER
RZ6 - AUS
RZ7 - PER
RZ8 - PER
RZ9 - CON
RZ10 - PER
RZ11 - AUS
RZ12 - AUS
VoC - Non

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

RZ1 - PER
RZ2 - PER
RZ3 - CON
RZ4 - PER
RZ5 - PER
RZ6 - AUS
RZ7 - PER
RZ8 - PER
RZ9 - CON
RZ10 - PER
RZ11 - AUS
RZ12 - AUS
VoC - AUS

Sorry but it is not yet legal to abstain on the VoC. Please provide either a YES or a NO on the VoC.

[Tierçéu Rôibeardescù]

RZ1 - PER
RZ2 - PER
RZ3 - CON
RZ4 - PER
RZ5 - PER
RZ6 - AUS
RZ7 - PER
RZ8 - PER
RZ9 - CON
RZ10 - PER
RZ11 - AUS
RZ12 - AUS
VoC -  Per

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

There has been some discussion with the leader of the LCC that an MC does not have to vote on the VoC under current OrgLaw due to the use of the word "may". My understanding is that, under current law, based on El Lex that if an MC casts an invalid vote on the VoC, as SoS I have to punish them so I guess the issue really is what is an invalid vote?

I did some digging and found that an invalid vote, from 23RZ39 is a vote to abstain on the VoC. I don't see where that law has been changed. It is true that MC's and Senators are voting on a law to remove the reference to punishing MC's, but that is not yet in force.

My legal interpretation is that had the MC in question simply not voted on the VoC, no invalid vote would have been cast. However, the MC in question DID vote on the VoC with abstain. Under current law I cannot accept any of his votes.

I invite the leader of the LCC to challenge this in Cort if necessary. If there are other interpretations I'd also love to hear them.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

RZ1 - PER
RZ2 - PER
RZ3 - CON
RZ4 - PER
RZ5 - PER
RZ6 - AUS
RZ7 - PER
RZ8 - PER
RZ9 - CON
RZ10 - PER
RZ11 - AUS
RZ12 - AUS
VoC - Non

Thanks for updating your vote Jordan. Votes entered.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

There has been some discussion with the leader of the LCC that an MC does not have to vote on the VoC under current OrgLaw due to the use of the word "may". My understanding is that, under current law, based on El Lex that if an MC casts an invalid vote on the VoC, as SoS I have to punish them so I guess the issue really is what is an invalid vote?

I did some digging and found that an invalid vote, from 23RZ39 is a vote to abstain on the VoC. I don't see where that law has been changed. It is true that MC's and Senators are voting on a law to remove the reference to punishing MC's, but that is not yet in force.

My legal interpretation is that had the MC in question simply not voted on the VoC, no invalid vote would have been cast. However, the MC in question DID vote on the VoC with abstain. Under current law I cannot accept any of his votes.

I invite the leader of the LCC to challenge this in Cort if necessary. If there are other interpretations I'd also love to hear them.

Of course, this whole issue will be completely moot once voting ends and assuming the Regent assents to RZ6.

[C. M. Siervicül]

I vote as follows:

RZ1: Per
RZ2: Per
RZ3: Per
RZ4: Contra, for the reasons stated in the Hopper thread.
RZ5: Per
RZ6: Per
RZ7: Per, though I dislike the CJ title.
RZ8: Schmidt
RZ9: Per
RZ10: Per
RZ11: Contra
RZ12: Austanéu
VoC: Üc

[C. M. Siervicül]

Sorry, had an editing error for RZ8 but am unable to edit my post. I vote "per" on RZ8.

[Iason Taiwos]

Am I missing the thread for the second clark? Will my vote count if I post it here? I vote:
RZ13: Per
RZ14: Per
RZ15: Per
RZ16: Per
VoC: Üc

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I will count it. Thanks.