[Shakerr]On Congress debate:get some balls #3rd voting time
Day 1,171, 01:37
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by Shakerr
Dear citizens of eNetherlands,
I would like to share the following with you, a debate currently being discussed inside congress of eNetherlands.
Proposal inside congress of eNetherlands proposed by Artemivanov:
Quote: "Proposal for new congress rules: (first proposal)
D) A vote can only be cast with the following terminology: “Yes”, “No”, “Neutral” or “Abstain”.
"Yes", "No" and "Neutral" count for the quorum as determined in article 4.3B. "Abstain" does not count for the quorum. A “Neutral” vote does not count towards “Yes” or “No”.
into:
D) A vote can only be cast with the following terminology: “Yes” or “No”.
I really think our congress should be more powerfull / clear. Get some balls and express your opinion."; - end of quote.
updated - new proposal made by Daniel Parker :
Quote: "Proposal for new congress rules: (latest proposal by Daniel Parker)
A vote can only be cast with the following terminology: “Yes”, “No” or "Neutral/Abstain". "Neutral/Abstain" does count for the quorum, but does not count towards “Yes” or “No”.
into
D) A vote can only be cast with the following terminology: “Yes”, “No”
My reflection:
updated As you can see, the new proposal by Daniel Parker is actually the same as previous one proposed by Artemnivanov as initial propasal, see option D in new and previous proposal. Strange we need to vote again on the same proposal? yes it is. I voted "NO" on this proposal once again.
end of update
The congress is our main political institution as nation. Inside congress the direction our eNation is being discussed and decisions are being made here. Therefore it is important to keep participation of congressman during votes high. Sometimes it's difficult to reach the qoutum to met the congress rules to get a decision made by congress. This is why i put some questionmarks on this proposal.
I wrote the following on the enetherlands.nl forum which reflects what i think about this proposal which touches the democratic institution of the eNL congress:
"If you want to keep participating high, you need the keep the "neutral" vote, especially as it currently counts to reach a qoutum.
Therefore to me, this proposal seems to make no sense at all. This proposal isn't about making the congress having "get some balls', but just to make it weaker, because you will have congressman who won't "sign" in on debates, which means it also doesn't count to reach the qoutum. If you value a more democratic eNetherlands, than you vote "no" on this proposal."
End of message out of eNL congress, to be continued!
Shakerr
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
I do not understand this either, I thought attempt#2 passed? So why is there an attempt#3? And like Shakerr said, its back to the beginning as #3 is like #1...
its not the same
1st time (artems) option was yes-no-neutral-abstain into yes-no-neutral
now it is yes-no-neutral/abstain into yes-no (see the ¨/¨)
I wanted to give all options to the congress instead of cherrypicking just one of the many options
if you dont like the options in this proposal, vote no... then we will keep the previous one (yes-no-neutral/abstain)
We should pass a law to prevent from the same proposal being made. But as Daniel said, it is a different proposal (and I sort of like the third one, finally).
Good to see that the proposal has been rejected. And that the majority of congress did notice that this was actually the same proposal as proposed before. There are other ways and better ways to improve the strenght of congress and to let it work more properly.
well it wasn't the same shakerr