• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
Although I'm sure it's selection bias combined with the fact I don't watch parliamentary procedure meetings on a regular basis, I have no memory of ever hearing a chair in an event like this say something like "I could not discern whether the 'ayes' or 'nays' had it". Or are you saying they are forced to recognize one as the winner and they do not have the option of saying it's too close to call?

In any event I agree that we're not exposed to the thousands of times where it proceeds normally, the only video clips you see online of stuff like that are the questionable ones. I still think the chair is, well, dictator is not the right word, but they're at least like a judge. So sure, your motion may be something that should be accepted, but if the judge/chair dismisses it for whatever reason it's not like you have much recourse because they get to decide what the rules are. So even if you bring another motion, there's no reason to think a hostile adjudicator is going to do anything other than create reasons why you're wrong.
Click to expand...

If its a questionable decision someone will raise a point of order and they'll get a second to have a roll call vote. which the chair has to abide by

What happened here normally can't happen.

The chair isn't really the judge either as the body decides everything.

Good read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert's_Rules_of_Order

The chair will then make an estimate of the count on each side and state what he or she believes the result to be. Since in close cases this can be imprecise, typically if there is any doubt as to the outcome any member of the assembly may request another vote by a method such as division of the assembly (a standing or rising vote), or a roll call vote. Voice votes are usually not recorded, while others are.
Click to expand...

In Congress, "the vast majority of actions decided by a voice vote" are ones for which "a strong or even overwhelming majority favors one side," or even unanimous consent. This is because after the chair announces what he believes to be the result of a voice vote, any member can request a division of the assembly (a rising vote, where each sides rise in turn to be counted), and one-fifth of members can demand a recorded vote on any question.[4]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_vote

that number differs on the type of groups and their size usually
 
N

nature boy

Member
NBC Nightly News ‏@NBCNightlyNews 6m6 minutes ago
JUST IN: Vehicle in Trump motorcade involved in minor crash and all are OK, including Donald Trump, campaign spokeswoman says - @alivitali
Click to expand...

Ali Vitali ‏@alivitali 5m5 minutes ago Warrensville Heights, OH
Re: reports of Trump motorcade accident, Hope Hicks tells me it was a staff car involved in a minor accident and "all OK."
Click to expand...

.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
The fact that it is clearly impossible to reasonably adjudicate a voice vote if it is at all close should explain their purpose, which is to dispense with votes in circumstances where all parties understand what is going to happen.

Basically they are not supposed to be democratic in the formal, let's all vote now sense. If you already worked out what's going to happen and everybody agrees or has worked out a compromise or something, then you can just do a voice vote and people can essentially vote by negative acclamation (by refusing to call the point of order) to get on with things.

If you held a real vote on everything all the time then it would take forever to get anything done, that's why parliaments evolved all kinds of systems to have fake votes on stuff that isn't actually in question.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
pigeon said:
The fact that it is clearly impossible to reasonably adjudicate a voice vote if it is at all close should explain their purpose, which is to dispense with votes in circumstances where all parties understand what is going to happen.

Basically they are not supposed to be democratic in the formal, let's all vote now sense. If you already worked out what's going to happen and everybody agrees or has worked out a compromise or something, then you can just do a voice vote and people can essentially vote by negative acclamation (by refusing to call the point of order) to get on with things.

If you held a real vote on everything all the time then it would take forever to get anything done, that's why parliaments evolved all kinds of systems to have fake votes on stuff that isn't actually in question.
Click to expand...

once again pigeon is way better at explaining things
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
NYCmetsfan said:
If its a questionable decision someone will raise a point of order and they'll get a second to have a roll call vote. which the chair has to abide by

What happened here normally can't happen.

The chair isn't really the judge either as the body decides everything.
Click to expand...

I think we're just talking past each other to different points.

I agree with you that according strictly to the rules, the chair is supposed to be more of a bean counter who says which stack is bigger or when a stack reaches the magic size. Ideally/theoretically, there is no problem.

The point I'm making is that in the real world, the way it works in practice is vulnerable to manipulation because the chair ultimately makes the final decisions/interpretations on a whole host of matters. If all they were was a bean-counter we could use a calculator instead.

It's the classic problem of what you do when the authority is the one breaking the rules they're in charge of enforcing. You can complain to them about their own actions, but don't be surprised when they say they've checked with themselves and found nothing wrong.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Samarecarm said:
I knew Bayh wouldn't have gotten involved unless the polling was crazy good for him.

Congrats to Dems on the pickup :p
Click to expand...
He might have room to grow too, as undecideds actually approve of Obama by a point. I'll wait until I see some nonpartisan polling before declaring IN a pickup, but it seems Senate control is all but guaranteed now, if you take IL and WI as given to flip.

Basically Democrats just need to hold NV and then flip one of NH, OH, FL or PA which all seem to be on knife's edge. Even NC, MO and AZ are on the board, although the fundamentals are stronger for the incumbents there than the other states which are more naturally competitive.

Best case scenario for Democrats is probably 56 seats which would be an amazing turnabout. I'll still hold onto hope that Iowa becomes magically competitive which would give Democrats a ton of latitude to pass legislation in the Senate. They would really just need to make sure Collins and Murkowski are onboard with anything, along with one of the other somewhat moderate Republicans.

I mean the House will probably still suck but what can you do.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
pigeon said:
The fact that it is clearly impossible to reasonably adjudicate a voice vote if it is at all close should explain their purpose, which is to dispense with votes in circumstances where all parties understand what is going to happen.

Basically they are not supposed to be democratic in the formal, let's all vote now sense. If you already worked out what's going to happen and everybody agrees or has worked out a compromise or something, then you can just do a voice vote and people can essentially vote by negative acclamation (by refusing to call the point of order) to get on with things.

If you held a real vote on everything all the time then it would take forever to get anything done, that's why parliaments evolved all kinds of systems to have fake votes on stuff that isn't actually in question.
Click to expand...
It's 2016, just give them all buttons. If everyone at Buffalo Wild Wings can get a handheld video poker device then I imagine the richest country in the world can yes/no buttons hooked up to a computer.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Samarecarm said:
Dems really need to win as many Senate seats as possible this year given that 2018 is likely to be terrible for them.
Click to expand...

Yep, keeping the majority for those extra 2 years might be important as it allows more time for another justice to retire. At this point, does Kennedy care which party he retires under?
 
T

thcsquad

Member
Kristoffer said:
It's 2016, just give them all buttons. If everyone at Buffalo Wild Wings can get a handheld video poker device then I imagine the richest country in the world can yes/no buttons hooked up to a computer.
Click to expand...

Maybe they planned for them, but Sheldon Adelson didn't want to pony up.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Kusagari said:
My current Senate prediction is the Dems hold Nevada and gain Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
Click to expand...
That's where I am but add Indiana and Florida (I don't think Rubio is worth shit, if Grayson wins the primary though say goodbye).

If things keep getting worse for the GOP though I think this will be similar to 06/08 where Dems win virtually every competitive seat. The handful of exceptions being in races that shouldn't have been competitive, like if Chuck Grassley holds onto his seat by 3 points or something.

My personal far-flung hope is Jason Kander wins in Missouri. Dude will be a permanent VP shortlister if he does. Young, extremely charismatic, veteran, red state Democrat.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Kristoffer said:
It's 2016, just give them all buttons. If everyone at Buffalo Wild Wings can get a handheld video poker device then I imagine the richest country in the world can yes/no buttons hooked up to a computer.
Click to expand...

That is how the House votes, and they still cheat constantly to prevent things from coming up to a vote (although they do it by controlling the Rules Committee to the degree that they literally pass an amendment to the rules every time they want to hold a vote). It just takes too long.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
pigeon said:
That is how the House votes, and they still cheat constantly to prevent things from coming up to a vote (although they do it by controlling the Rules Committee to the degree that they literally pass an amendment to the rules every time they want to hold a vote). It just takes too long.
Click to expand...

How does such a scenario take that much longer than a voice vote though? I'm not disputing that this is true just curious.

"All those in favor say/press aye..."

"All those against say/press nay..."

"The ___s have it..."

It would seem that it would take roughly equivalent time and that the button method guarantees not only an objective assessment, but an official record too. Or perhaps that is exactly the reason they don't do it that way?
 
U

User 463088

Banned
Wilsongt said:
Is there any official place to read their official platform that they officially put out officially?
Click to expand...

Let me sum it up for you

tumblr_inline_noxxjz59Qq1qbrcge_500.gif
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
How does such a scenario take that much longer than a voice vote though? I'm not disputing that this is true just curious.

"All those in favor say/press aye..."

"All those against say/press nay..."

"The ___s have it..."

It would seem that it would take roughly equivalent time and that the button method guarantees not only an objective assessment, but an official record. Or perhaps that is exactly the reason they don't do it that way?
Click to expand...

Well, okay, I oversimplified. The House is controlled the way it is mostly to make sure that stuff the Speaker doesn't want to pass can't come to a vote.

Also, in looking into it more, the House doesn't give every member a voting button. It gives every member an ID card and they have to use a voting station. So that's probably a big part of the delay.

I dunno, I am not actually a parliamentarian :p Even if we made voting easier I suspect norms wouldn't change very rapidly. Parliamentary procedure takes a long time and makes it very hard to negotiate, it's easier to just talk about things separately and resolve everything before you actually hold any votes.
 
T

Tranqueris

Banned
I really wonder what Ted Cruz is gonna do. Is he gonna fuck over Trump at the last second? Or is he actually gonna endorse someone who implied that his wife is ugly as fuck and that his father helped kill JFK.

Then again the rest of the losers have been endorsing Trump, although I don't think he went that hard against any of them with the exception of Jeb Bush.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
How does such a scenario take that much longer than a voice vote though? I'm not disputing that this is true just curious.

"All those in favor say/press aye..."

"All those against say/press nay..."

"The ___s have it..."

It would seem that it would take roughly equivalent time and that the button method guarantees not only an objective assessment, but an official record too. Or perhaps that is exactly the reason they don't do it that way?
Click to expand...

there's also the idea they don't want peoples votes recorded. Its the body as a whole speaking
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
pigeon said:
Well, okay, I oversimplified. The House is controlled the way it is mostly to make sure that stuff the Speaker doesn't want to pass can't come to a vote.

Also, in looking into it more, the House doesn't give every member a voting button. It gives every member an ID card and they have to use a voting station. So that's probably a big part of the delay.

I dunno, I am not actually a parliamentarian :p Even if we made voting easier I suspect norms wouldn't change very rapidly. Parliamentary procedure takes a long time and makes it very hard to negotiate, it's easier to just talk about things separately and resolve everything before you actually hold any votes.
Click to expand...

That's understandable. Obviously even if they had good intentions they would still need to rework many of the rules to accommodate such an automated vote tallying system and that requires pretty significant institutional changes.

NYCmetsfan said:
there's also the idea they don't want peoples votes recorded. Its the body as a whole speaking
Click to expand...

Sure, but part of the reason for the voice vote is to confirm or deny presuppositions about which way the vote will go. You can't say it's the decision of the whole body if you're not even sure about the outcome of the vote in the first place. A button vote system doesn't require you to log the results by itself, but it does ensure that the results are accurate, however you choose to use them.
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Might have already been posted, but...

@JohnHarwood our new NBC/WSJ poll suggests Trump on path to lose more college-educated whites from Romney 2012 than number of non-college whites he adds
Click to expand...

Looks like this race will be saved by the relatively smarter Republicans.
 
T

TheFatOne

Member
Holy shit this idiot on MSNBC tried to deflect racism by essentially arguing that white people have contributed to most to modern civilization. Just pure fucking garbage.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Oblivion said:
Might have already been posted, but...



Looks like this race will be saved by the relatively smarter Republicans.
Click to expand...

2012 college-educated Republicans: The GOP is pretty lame and panders somewhat to bad parts of our culture but I want my tax cuts.

2016 college-educated Republicans: OH MY GOD DONALD TRUMP IS A CRAZY MAN WHAT ARE WE DOING!?!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
3K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
257
49K
rofif replied
Evolution of Open World Games 1980-2021
2 3
141
13K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
60K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
Top Bottom