Table (parliamentary procedure) Puns

So a post on the exjw subreddit surfaced a memory. I suspect voting procedures happened more frequently when congregations owned their own halls, but here's what happened:

A congregation had built their own hall with their own labor and money (not a quick-build). Over time it needed some updates. The chair fabric had worn out, the carpet was ugly and worn, and there were some other minor aesthetics that needed to be fixed. Resolution passed easily because we were all going to get involved, and do it on the cheap. Most of us laid carpet for a living, and you could teach a monkey how to reupholster those chairs. Came out nice and it was all paid for.

One town over had a much newer hall. About a year or two after the first hall got the renovations done, these jibrones want to do the same updates, only there was nothing wrong with the chairs or carpets. Everything was still in good condition and it looked modern. On top of that, they weren't going to do it themselves. In fact, they were going to take money out and pay someone else to do it. Resolution failed.

Elders wouldn't have it. They changed the following service meeting schedule to local needs to handle the issue. 30 minutes on why they wanted these updates while trying to assuage concerns. Resolution barely passed. There was still a lot of upset people worried about wasting money. This was the early to mid 90s. The second hall is a Lutheran Church now.

I’m about to teach a unit on Parliamentary Procedure and had an idea to use a game to teach it.

PP requires the students to use deliberative language, debate, and vote to make decisions as a group.

I was thinking Pokemon Red/Blue would be good for this, as the students will make motions, debate, and vote on name, gender, and starting pokemon, as well as what to do when we meet a Pidgey.

Are there any other good games that would offer my class lots of choices to practice parliamentary procedure with? Preferably something emulator-friendly, or PS4.

Thanks for your help.

It seems like a lot of Senate and House business gets slowed down due to rule and procedures, even when a party has a majority in that chamber and there’s no filibuster.

Earlier this week, over 50 Texas House Democrats denied the Texas House a quorum by leaving the State in protest over GOP-backed voting legislation. The move was similar to the May walkout and reminiscent of the 2003 decampment over redistricting.

• What parliamentary procedures, legal recourse, and/or political mechanisms are available to compel the Texas Democrats to return or punish them for leaving?

• Beyond these aforementioned examples, is there a precedent for this type of action? If so, by which party and for what stated reason?

This is a mod rework of a user submission

I'm trying to gather some other universities' official policies, to get an idea what everyone else is doing, but I'm having trouble finding them just listed online. Anybody else have theirs up and available? Or if not officially up - what are your experiences with it? I'm thinking big 100+ person meetings, where lots of people want to speak. Do you keep the chat on? Do you stick strictly to Robert's Rules?

Demographics: Asian First generation Only dad went to college Middle class

Accomplishments: Skillsusa Extemp Speaking (2019) national silver FBLA Prepared speaking (2019) state finalist SkillsUSA Parliamentary procedure (2021) national gold

I’d appreciate any help or guidance.

Weighted GPA - 3.9

Class rank - 95 out of 450

Will have associates in business administration by the time I graduate high school (even though ivies don’t accept other college credits)

Extracurriculars: State Officer SkillsUSA (NJ) Chapter President SkillsUSA Men’s Physique competitor (2020) Volleyball 2 years Started two businesses which were both sold by me.

Going for business administration programs at Ivies...

Thank you!!!!

As part of UK Parliament Week the Chair of the Procedure Committee of the UK Parliament, Sir Charles Walker MP, invites you to ask questions about the work of the Committee and the procedure of the House of Commons.

The Procedure Committee considers the practice and procedure of the House of Commons in the conduct of public business. The Committee often holds inquiries on procedural topics and has explored a wide range of issues. For example, in July 2019 the Committee recommended a dedicated committee to scrutinise the Government's budget and is currently inviting evidence for an inquiry into the voting procedures of the House of Commons.

Let us know your questions by midday on Wednesday. Please note that there will only be time for a few questions to be put forward to the Chair.

The Chair will record a video response that will be shared in a separate thread during UK Parliament Week, which runs from 2 to the 8 November.

The Committee is inviting questions from you on a number of issues including:

• What the Committee does and what are its aims
• Work the Committee has done
• Why the House needs a Budget committee
• Private Members Bills
• Voting procedures – electronic voting, proxy voting etc
• Houses powers to call for papers
• Procedural questions – SO24 debates and motions
• Powers of the House
• What the Committee will look at next

Edit: Thanks very much for all your questions so far. The confirmation of the General Election has resulted in a delay to this exercise. Thanks for your patience - we'll keep you updated on this thread.

UPDATE: Thanks everyone for your patience. Due to the upcoming General Election and dissolution of Parliament, pre-election period rules mean that the Procedure Committee are no longer able to participate in this activity. However, we are working on getting procedural specialists to answer the q

So for instance, if the new congress were to pass a new voting rights act. Can a bill passed with a simple majority always be overridden down the road by a simple majority?

Or can a bill passed by a simple majority specify it can only be removed by a super majority?

A recent House of Commons Library Insight explores the key changes to parliamentary procedures caused by the coronavirus pandemic:

The Coronavirus Timeline sets out the Commons’ response to the pandemic, including key lockdown dates and changes to the way parliamentarians worked. It includes links to the relevant debates in Hansard, Speaker’s Statements, Procedure Committee reports, the ‘Members’ Guide to hybrid proceedings’ and correspondence on proceedings during the pandemic.

How did other parliaments around the world adapt?

Coronavirus: Changes to practice and procedure in the UK and other parliaments gives an overview.

The House of Commons Library publishes politically impartial policy analysis and statistical research, free for all to read. Choose from over 30 topics and get relevant material sent straight to your inbox. Subscribe here.

I'm thinking in particular about a situation happening right now where a Senate committee moved a motion forward to the full Senate even though the committee didn't have the required members present to vote on that motion. (Two minority members were required to be present by Senate rules, but none were present.)

I am looking for factual answers here. Are there either explicit laws, or court rulings, or some other writings, that are informative to the question of whether an action by members of the senate (passed law, nomination, or whatever other actions the senate as a whole can be said to take) requires that its own rules have been followed in order for that action to count as an action taken by the senate as a whole?

If the motion passed by the committee mentioned above is voted on in Senate and passes, for example, can that later be challenged on legal grounds given that the original passing of the motion from committee took place against the senate's own rules for how committees are to conduct business?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55d20195e4b06f17b400345c/t/5818a37159cc684985382a80/1478009713958/Basic+Parliamentary+Procedures.pdf

Been following the UK Brexit fiasco lately. I read that the UK Parliamenbt cannot go to an early election without a 2/3 approval of the House of Commons.

I'd always assumed that they were like us, that we had the same Westminster traditions, and that the PM could just go to the Queen, ask her to dissolve Parliament, and call an election. Also, I thought a non-confidence vote in the house could trigger an early election too.

Also , given that the new PM's new government hasn't won a confidence vote yrt in {Parliament, wouldn't there be a possibility that the opposition could approach the Queen and ask to form a government if it were clear that they could win the confidence opf the House?

Why the apparant discrepeancy? Am I misunderstanding something.

The House of Commons returned from recess in April using a ‘hybrid’ model, with some MPs in the chamber and others taking part remotely.

The House of Commons Library have written a briefing which explores the changes to practice and procedure, both in the UK Parliament and some others around the world.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8874/

---

Our content on the impact of coronavirus is all in one place: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/coronavirus/

• There are quick-read articles and longer briefings on employment, welfare and benefits, housing, education, travel, and more
• This page will be regularly updated but as this is a fast-moving issue, each piece should be read as accurate at the time of publication.
• The page links through to Commons Library, Lords Library and Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) content

October 19th, 2019

It was a dark and cold morning as Parliament resumed on a Saturday of all days. Complaints rang out through the House of Commons as they were forced to work on a weekend when they should be relaxing like the common man. Such actions show how above and beyond the MPs were going to improve the lives of the UK citizens. The entirety of the opposition laughed at such a remark.

Letwin Amendment:

If such an amendment passes it would require Prime Minister Boris Johnson to not withdraw from the EU until a deal has been successfully voted upon by Parliament

>Ayys: 357

>Nays: 271

With the Letwin Amendment passing it triggers the Benn Act requiring the prime minister immediately to write to the European Council with a request for an extension of withdrawal until 31 January 2020.

Boris Johnson has written such a letter but refused to sign it believing this in his own unique and stable mind to be a loophole.

Kenneth Clarke MP and Jeremy Corbyn MP both write their own letters as well and sign them seeking to signify both a representation of the people and the rejection of Boris' childlike actions.

Just wondering because the book on this is quite long. Have you ever seen an interesting situation in your club where parliamentary procedure rules were debated or used in an interesting way?

Who determined who spoke and in what order? Could any senator submit a motion? Did acts of the Senate have to be in writing? Was it acceptable to interrupt speakers? Were there punishments for Senators who refused to follow standard procedure?

So in this age of American legislative dysfunction I've been thinking about ways to construct a more effective legislative system.

The Advantages of Majority Rule

I recently read this very interesting article about majority rule. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/18b448r6

Basically the gist that the only thing worse than majority rule is minority rule. Moreover, it makes the point that super-majority rule could make it mathematically impossible for legislators to compromise and achieve the maximally favored proposal. Moreover, the paper claims that super-majority systems could lead to the complete exclusion of minorities rather than protect them. Finally, super-majority systems are systems based on the tyranny of the status quo - ignoring the desires and wishes of the people in favor of the wishes of past people.

As we all know America operates on a super-majority system. As we all know America has a mediocre track record on protecting minorities. As we all know the American system suffers from gridlock, as predicted by the paper, where it takes a Civil War to grant black people fundamental freedoms (rather than achieving freedom through legislative procedure). Or, it takes the construction of a house of cards where for example, the 1960's Civil Rights legislation is all built on-top the "commerce clause" which is obviously not the use the Founders had intended.

The defense of super-majorities is that "with a spike of passion" the people may pass foolish legislation. Then in my opinion super-majorities are not a good remedy. If time is needed to calm folks down, then what you are looking for is a time integrated majority.

Time Integrated Voting

A new parliamentary procedure I've been thinking about is to create a new system to "calm passions" while also preserving majority rule. For example an organization may want to move more slowly when amending their Constitution or other fundamental code. Instead of requiring super-majorities for passage, the organization would require "integrated support over time".

In this system unanimous support leads to passage nearly immediately, while controversial legislation takes more time (and legislative sessions) to pass. For example if an amendment achieves a small but consistent majority for a period of say, 3 years, time integrated voting would say that's sufficient time to "calm down t