NationStates Jolt Archive

it would be a lot better if we could agree or disagree with individual articles rather than the whole resolution because say for example i dont agree with two of the articles, then i would vote "disagree". but that means that im choosing to disagree with the whole resolution. it would make decisions clearer and defined and that would improve the UN

it would be a lot better if we could agree or disagree with individual articles rather than the whole resolution because say for example i dont agree with two of the articles, then i would vote "disagree". but that means that im choosing to disagree with the whole resolution. it would make decisions clearer and defined and that would improve the UN

I think Line-Item Voting would be counter-productive, Nothing would ever pass, I Believe in an "all or nothing" method.

I think Line-Item Voting would be counter-productive, Nothing would ever pass, I Believe in an "all or nothing" method.

While I respect your opinion and do believe that in some systems this is a good method, my Confederation uses a parliamentry style of rules to conduct its business.

The motion that might achieve the ends we are discussing is called a motion to Divide the Question. Anybody with standing simply makes the motion and the chair then immediately gives the proponent a few minutes to explain how he / she would divide the resolution into parts. The body then quickly votes in favor of the motion to divide the resolution into parts.

If the motion passes, then the body debates on separate parts of the resolution and votes on the separate parts.

Usually this motion is used to cut a resolution into at most two or three parts. And yes, it has been great in reducing pork.

But under our current rules, I don't think such a mechanism could be used here. And the issue isn't that resolution sponsors are trying to pork policies in their resolutions. I think it is fairly safe to assume that most UN members don't care to discuss draft proposals. Like our honorable representative from Frisbeeteria already pointed out, once a proposal is in the queue (not even approved), it can't be touched.

With that in mind I urge all to take a more active role in discussing ideas and draft proposals before they hit the floor.

[snip extra posts]

[snip extra posts]

[snip trip post]

what do you mean by "porking"?

Not quite on topic, I suppose, but it's been asked.

"Pork," in a political context, is a superfluous addition to legislation added because it might not pass independently. It's usually used in regards to spending/appropriations bills. In blatant (and NS related) terms, pork could be added to a resolution regarding freedom of speech by tacking on a clause which states that each UN member nation must give X-Nation 1,000 USD -- such a resolution probably wouldn't pass, but that hopefully illustrates the general concept. The idea is to hide your pork by burying it in something else -- people are much less likely to vote against your proposal to build a dam in your state using federal funding when you can then accuse them of opposing some critical thing or other.

And also: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pork

what do you mean by "porking"?

Pork, as in legislation added to a resolution that really has nothing to do with the subject at hand but gives a benefit to an individual or small group. I think of it as sort of a tricky, well concealed, legal bribe.

Line-item veto would bring about two significant problems. First, by allowing countries to invalidate specific clauses, they could modify the legislation's intent by removing key operative clauses. For example, if the resolution's operative section had a clause to establish a program to administer food aid, then a second to establish the oversight agency, country's could simply cancel the oversight clause and effectively gut the legislation.

Second, its a freakin' game mechanics proposal, people. Knock it off.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Don't tell me it's actually been proposed, I only went through the proposal queue 2 hours ago.

Don't tell me it's actually been proposed, I only went through the proposal queue 2 hours ago.

:)
No, I don't think any of us is gonna to propose something like this. Discuss it to death ... sure, but it is easy to see how doing anything from a line item veto to even holding separate votes is a logistical nightmare (not to mention falls into that black box called 'game mechanics').

Though it is nice to know that somebody does go through the proposal queue to knock out inappropriate proposals.