Encouraging More Proposals Resolution

[Comfed]

Continuing the discussion from Great Council Convening Resolution of 2022:

@Sandaoguo

• Determines the following agenda and rules of order, which may altered by majority vote of the Great Council at its discretion:

1. The Chair of the Great Council shall limit the first week of the Great Council to debate of procedures, admittance of non-legislators, and identification of problems to be resolved.
2. Following that week, the Chair of the Great Council shall open general debate on proposals.
3. Proposals must be debated for five days before a participant motions to vote.
4. Upon recognition of a motion to vote by the Chair or Deputy Chair, the proposal will be brought to vote for five days and adopted according to Article XIV, Section 5 by majority vote.
5. A motion to end general debate may be called no sooner than four weeks after of the convening of the Great Council. Upon recognition of the motion by the Chair or Deputy Chair, the motion shall be brought to vote for five days and adopted in favor by three-fifths of the Great Council. No new proposals may be submitted once the motion is recognized, unless and until the motion shall be rejected by the Great Council. One day following adoption, all outstanding proposals will be brought to vote for five days, unless retracted by the original proposer prior to voting starting, and adopted according to Article XIV, Section 5 by majority vote.
6. Should adopted proposals contain conflicting or contrary language, the Great Council will enter into a reconciliation period, wherein all conflicts will be resolved. Each conflicting proposal will be brought to a competing vote for five days, and the proposal favored by the greater number of participants will be adopted.
7. Following a reconciliation period, or in the absence of the need for one, the Chair of the Great Council shall combine all amendments into an omnibus and bring the omnibus to a final vote for five days. The final omnibus shall be adopted according to Article XIV, Section 5.
8. The Chair of the Great Council shall publish the final product of the Great Council, and recognize a motion by a participant to adjourn sine die. The motion to adjourn sine die shall be adopted by majority vote, and the final product shall be presented to the Chair of the Assembly for recording.

I am proposing this amendment to the Great Council Convening Resolution so that proposals may be advanced to the omnibus stage of the GC my simple majority vote. The omnibus will still be adopted by 60% majority vote. I propose this because we have seen a few popular proposals be advanced which have failed to get to the omnibus stage - i.e. they will not even be considered in the final draft. I propose a system in which popular proposals will at least be considered, if not necessarily adopted in the end. I don’t think it’s necessary to have the number of veto points that we have in a body that exists to radically reform the region’s government.

[genericsequencealias]

So, switch the threshold of entering omnibus and accepting omnibus?
Immediately foreseeing issue is “committee packaging” of RL legislative proposals or “I will vote for yours to pass if you vote for mine to pass”.
So, what kind of “Reconciliation period” do you imagine coming out of this?

[Comfed]

@genericsequencealias

So, switch the threshold of entering omnibus and accepting omnibus?

No, because acceptance of the omnibus proposal requires a three-fifths majority currently and it still will.

[Sandaoguo]

There’s merit to this idea. I think people will be more willing to accept idea that only slightly oppose, if the broader package is overall more acceptable to them.

[Comfed]

Are there any further comments? I would like to move forward with this.

[Drystar]

I’m not sure how changing the vote threshold will encourage more proposals. If an idea is well thought out, then it’s merits should enable it to pass muster.

[Pronoun]

Ideas still have to pass muster when the final omnibus package comes to vote. They also have to pass muster in the reconciliation phase. Why do we need to set the bar for ‘passing muster’ so high right now?

[Drystar]

To be bluntly honest, because people here have agendas that they haven’t been able to get through because their ideas didn’t pass the current threshold, so it seems to me they want to change the rules midgame to help them, rather then what’s best for the greater good.

[Comfed]

I am just proposing this because it is silly to have a supermajority threshold two times. Although if you mention the greater good, I fail to see how the state of the GC now, where we have not passed a single proposal due to the requirement for supermajority approval of them all

[Drystar]

Fair enough, and to be honest this GC in my opinion was premature, if there’s a lack of people participating in regular events, I’m not sure why anyone is surprised they can’t get things over here.

[Sandaoguo]

On the other hand, you are part of a group in the minority that has stymied changes the majority of participants want. So much for democracy, eh?

[Drystar]

Because I objected to the changes and voted against them, that somehow invalidates democracy? Or just your vision of how everyone should vote. Must be that title I’m so craving after I suppose.

[Sandaoguo]

When you advocate entrenching a minority opinion, yes, it does.

[genericsequencealias]

…I mean I’d argue we’re more of a sectarian democracy than a majoritarian democracy. I’d (personally) favor a deliberative democracy because it’s more discursive-oriented than decision-oriented. However, for the region, I’d suggest looking at whether it would function better as a participatory or a guided democracy.
Be as that may,

@Comfed

it is silly to have a supermajority threshold two times

I don’t believe that we’ve had anticipatory, long-term proposals until the forum transfers but I do agree that mine or yours abstention(s) shouldn’t prevent a legislation from being considered.