Re: (Passed) WAAF Reform Act

Federation of Antanares Sat Jun 28, 2014 6:34 pm

I think Ireland is right. 6 vacant seat, so we have 14 seats. Nine have voted and seven are in favor. I think is passed.

Kaevi Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:58 pm

I would believe that this act is passed. As we needed at least 8 participants, not total votes in favor of the proposal. I think even a distribution like 1 favor : 7 abstain would work from what i understand.

Texania Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:11 am

As an abstainee, i abstained because i was neutral both for and against the bill as i am not in the WAAF. I count my vote as a participating vote. So it is 8.

Great Eurussia Sun Jun 29, 2014 12:58 pm

Kaevi wrote:
I would believe that this act is passed. As we needed at least 8 participants, not total votes in favor of the proposal. I think even a distribution like 1 favor : 7 abstain would work from what i understand.

I think you are getting me wrong. My confusion is there is a judicial interpretation that majority approval votes have to be counted based on ALL member states of Parliament. Now, I won't contradict at the moment the 11 votes required constitutionally to pass a law.

The issue here is different, there are 6 vacancies making the Parliament composed of 14 nations. And applying the ruling I've mentioned, there must be 8 approving votes to pass a law and by the official count there is only 7 votes. And the abstention has no bearing at all since they neither voted in favor or against, thus, in effect, if we have 14 now in Parliament, and 9 cast their votes, we still have 5 votes that were never forwarded that could make or break the proposal. So, I do believe that as much as I support the proposal, technically, it didn't passed.

Ireland Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:23 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Kaevi wrote:
I would believe that this act is passed. As we needed at least 8 participants, not total votes in favor of the proposal. I think even a distribution like 1 favor : 7 abstain would work from what i understand.

I think you are getting me wrong. My confusion is there is a judicial interpretation that majority approval votes have to be counted based on ALL member states of Parliament. Now, I won't contradict at the moment the 11 votes required constitutionally to pass a law.
The issue here is different, there are 6 vacancies making the Parliament composed of 14 nations. And applying the ruling I've mentioned, there must be 8 approving votes to pass a law and by the official count there is only 7 votes. And the abstention has no bearing at all since they neither voted in favor or against, thus, in effect, if we have 14 now in Parliament, and 9 cast their votes, we still have 5 votes that were never forwarded that could make or break the proposal. So, I do believe that as much as I support the proposal, technically, it didn't passed.

No there must only be 8 votes with a majority of those votes to pass a law.

Great Eurussia Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:37 pm

Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Kaevi wrote:
I would believe that this act is passed. As we needed at least 8 participants, not total votes in favor of the proposal. I think even a distribution like 1 favor : 7 abstain would work from what i understand.

I think you are getting me wrong. My confusion is there is a judicial interpretation that majority approval votes have to be counted based on ALL member states of Parliament. Now, I won't contradict at the moment the 11 votes required constitutionally to pass a law.
The issue here is different, there are 6 vacancies making the Parliament composed of 14 nations. And applying the ruling I've mentioned, there must be 8 approving votes to pass a law and by the official count there is only 7 votes. And the abstention has no bearing at all since they neither voted in favor or against, thus, in effect, if we have 14 now in Parliament, and 9 cast their votes, we still have 5 votes that were never forwarded that could make or break the proposal. So, I do believe that as much as I support the proposal, technically, it didn't passed.
No there must only be 8 votes with a majority of those votes to pass a law.

Hmmm, how is that possible?

Texania Sun Jun 29, 2014 1:43 pm

We have 14 parliament members that are in our region right now. 7 is 50%. We need a majority. 8/14 is a majority at slightly over 57% of parliament, therefore 8 is how many we need to vote in a bill.

Great Eurussia Sun Jun 29, 2014 3:25 pm

Texania wrote:We have 14 parliament members that are in our region right now. 7 is 50%. We need a majority. 8/14 is a majority at slightly over 57% of parliament, therefore 8 is how many we need to vote in a bill.

Yes, we need to vote, in favour to pass a bill.

Texania Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:19 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Texania wrote:We have 14 parliament members that are in our region right now. 7 is 50%. We need a majority. 8/14 is a majority at slightly over 57% of parliament, therefore 8 is how many we need to vote in a bill.

Yes, we need to vote, in favour to pass a bill.

SO what you are saying is that it need to be 8 votes in FAVOR? No. We only need a majority of the parliament to show up and vote . There was 9 votes. 7 in favor, 2 in abstain. Not being present and Abstaining are two different things. 9/14 is majority present, so this bill is passed.

Great Eurussia Sun Jun 29, 2014 4:41 pm

Texania wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Texania wrote:We have 14 parliament members that are in our region right now. 7 is 50%. We need a majority. 8/14 is a majority at slightly over 57% of parliament, therefore 8 is how many we need to vote in a bill.

Yes, we need to vote, in favour to pass a bill.

SO what you are saying is that it need to be 8 votes in FAVOR? No. We only need a majority of the parliament to show up and vote . There was 9 votes. 7 in favor, 2 in abstain. Not being present and Abstaining are two different things. 9/14 is majority present, so this bill is passed.

Well in that case, I would have to refer you to the Court Ruling on Arveyres case.

New Tarajan Sun Jun 29, 2014 8:19 pm

You should remind it, Eurussia.
Moreover, I'm still not seeing the Judicial Investigation Act as Approved. The Court ruled so in that case.
I already told you many times, Eurussia, and this is the last time I do this: change the status of that law to Approved.

Sponsored content