(Dismissed) WA Resolution Voting Act

Scouting is in favor.

Serenarea is in FAVOR

Just for clarification, nations that actually vote for abstentions will not be excluded. This act only aims to dismiss any non-votes for resolutions. In addition, we'd like to propose that in the event of a resolution receiving a majority abstention vote, said resolution will be labeled as [Dormant]: the resolution has not reached a definitive resolution and has passed the voting period, but can still lean either way if the majority becomes yea or nay.

Xolox supports the passage of this act, but I would prefer a 2/3 vote requirement, rather than 3/4 or majority.

Xolox wrote:Xolox supports the passage of this act, but I would prefer a 2/3 vote requirement, rather than 3/4 or majority.

Wouldn't a 2/3 make it worse then the original ten votes? Ten is a set requirement while 2/3 could be 2/3 of 14 or 10. Just total the amount of voters and take a majority from that.

New Rhodinia wrote:

Xolox wrote:Xolox supports the passage of this act, but I would prefer a 2/3 vote requirement, rather than 3/4 or majority.

Wouldn't a 2/3 make it worse then the original ten votes? Ten is a set requirement while 2/3 could be 2/3 of 14 or 10. Just total the amount of voters and take a majority from that.

Or perhaps we just vote every weekend, Sat/Sun 48 hour voting period. If someone isn't going to be in town, they can Vote By Proxy, telling the President or VP via telegram what their vote is for each legislation and the President or VP could post a Screenshot of their vote in the appropriate threads.

New Rhodinia wrote:

Xolox wrote:Xolox supports the passage of this act, but I would prefer a 2/3 vote requirement, rather than 3/4 or majority.

Wouldn't a 2/3 make it worse then the original ten votes? Ten is a set requirement while 2/3 could be 2/3 of 14 or 10. Just total the amount of voters and take a majority from that.

Currently, it's a 3/4 vote, it is not set at 10. 75% of 14 is 10.5, and we can't get half a vote so it is rounded down to 10. A 2/3 vote, if everyone voted, would make it a requirement of 9 votes. If 10 people voted, you would need 6 to pass, instead of the 7 that would be required with 3/4.

favor

Xolox wrote:

New Rhodinia wrote:

Xolox wrote:Xolox supports the passage of this act, but I would prefer a 2/3 vote requirement, rather than 3/4 or majority.

Wouldn't a 2/3 make it worse then the original ten votes? Ten is a set requirement while 2/3 could be 2/3 of 14 or 10. Just total the amount of voters and take a majority from that.

Currently, it's a 3/4 vote, it is not set at 10. 75% of 14 is 10.5, and we can't get half a vote so it is rounded down to 10. A 2/3 vote, if everyone voted, would make it a requirement of 9 votes. If 10 people voted, you would need 6 to pass, instead of the 7 that would be required with 3/4.

That sounds good. I'll add that in.

New Rhodinia wrote:

The WA Resolution Voting Act

Upon seeing recent failings of perfectly reasonable resolutions, I think it's about time we made sure some of these resolutions actually passed or otherwise received a fair ruling outside of "death by abstention". This legislation aims to alleviate any lame outcomes for any resolution that passes through the WASC.

The original plan for this legislation was brought up by Vice-President Xolox and as such, Xolox will be considered a co-author to this proposal.

Here are the proposals thus far:

1. That nations failing to vote on propositions (and subsequently counted as abstentions) be excluded from the final vote tally.
   
   
2. That the final vote requirement of ten be abolished and instead replaced by a 2/3 majority ruling.
   
   
3. That this proposed WA Resolution Voting Act be affected by its own guidelines upon discussion and voting process.
   
   
4. That (if necessary) we remind that nations under effect of any including resolution not be counted towards the final vote tally.
   
   
5. That past resolutions (as of today, January 13, 2015) that have been dismissed via abstention saturation be re-evaluated under the guidelines of this proposed WA Resolution Voting Act.
   
   
   

Hopefully, we won't see a clogged-up Dismissed Resolution forum.

This is now subject to three (3) days debate/revisions.

No the current system is working fine

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:No the current system is working fine

A large majority of what we're putting forth is being dismissed because not enough people are actually voting. How is that fine?

New Rhodinia wrote:

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:No the current system is working fine

A large majority of what we're putting forth is being dismissed because not enough people are actually voting. How is that fine?

I agree with New Rhodinia.

Scottish Republic is abstaining.

Voting may now commence in two (2) days.

Great Eurussia wrote:Voting may now commence in two (2) days.

In or for?

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:Voting may now commence in two (2) days.

In or for?

For :-D

I'm in favor now.

Snarfia is in Favor

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:I'm in favor now.

Strange how you change your vote when Eurussia voices his suppport. Do you ever even read the proposals?

Xolox wrote:

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:I'm in favor now.

Strange how you change your vote when Eurussia voices his suppport. Do you ever even read the proposals?

Eurussia has never made any vote yet on the proposal.

Great Eurussia wrote:

Xolox wrote:

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:I'm in favor now.

Strange how you change your vote when Eurussia voices his suppport. Do you ever even read the proposals?

Eurussia has never made any vote yet on the proposal.

It looks like you did when you put "For :-D"

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Great Eurussia wrote:

Xolox wrote:

Muchos Estados Unidos wrote:I'm in favor now.

Strange how you change your vote when Eurussia voices his suppport. Do you ever even read the proposals?

Eurussia has never made any vote yet on the proposal.

It looks like you did when you put "For :-D"

Sorry about that!

Great Eurussia responded to the "in or for" question, not the official vote. I do, however,want to make a quick query here: are votes before the official vote call going to be counted? Nations seem to be keen on voting as soon as possible.