CDZ Republicans just don't like to vote on things it seems....

[320 Years of History]

What I take from that video is further confirmation that I do not at all like voice votes and "in the opinion of the chair..." pontifications of the vote's outcome. Maybe my computer speakers aren't good enough, but I couldn't tell whether the "ayes" or "nays" constituted 2/3rds, or even just a simple majority.

Had I been able to tell the difference, the voice vote would have been fine, but I couldn't, and clearly the chairman wasn't all that sure either, so I think the matter should have gone to some sort of objectively measured vote. Given the technology we have available these days, I see no reason why that could not have been planned for and done when needed, not only for that matter, but for any others as well. Surely there's an app for that, or at least there could be.

 

[JoeMoma]

What I take from that video is further confirmation that I do not at all like voice votes and "in the opinion of the chair..." pontifications of the vote's outcome. Maybe my computer speakers aren't good enough, but I couldn't tell whether the "ayes" or "nays" constituted 2/3rds, or even just a simple majority.

Had I been able to tell the difference, the voice vote would have been fine, but I couldn't, and clearly the chairman wasn't all that sure either, so I think the matter should have gone to some sort of objectively measured vote. Given the technology we have available these days, I see no reason why that could not have been planned for and done when needed, not only for that matter, but for any others as well. Surely there's an app for that, or at least there could be.

I beleive that it was unlikely that the 2/3 majority was reached to change the platform. I don't think the chairman wanted to risk a countable vote for fear of the result. The Democrats did not want to lose the votes of many that beleive in God.

 

[320 Years of History]

What I take from that video is further confirmation that I do not at all like voice votes and "in the opinion of the chair..." pontifications of the vote's outcome. Maybe my computer speakers aren't good enough, but I couldn't tell whether the "ayes" or "nays" constituted 2/3rds, or even just a simple majority.

Had I been able to tell the difference, the voice vote would have been fine, but I couldn't, and clearly the chairman wasn't all that sure either, so I think the matter should have gone to some sort of objectively measured vote. Given the technology we have available these days, I see no reason why that could not have been planned for and done when needed, not only for that matter, but for any others as well. Surely there's an app for that, or at least there could be.

I beleive that it was unlikely that the 2/3 majority was reached to change the platform. I don't think the chairman wanted to risk a countable vote for fear of the result. The Democrats did not want to lose the votes of many that beleive in God.

That seems quite plausible. Perhaps that plank shouldn't have been offered. Frankly, I don't care what word is used; I care what meaning and intent the overall provision carries expressly. "God," "supreme deity," whatever....

You and others may care about the "God" word and its place in some statute. I don't. I care about the process used to arrive at whatever provisions of law, regulation, statement, etc. that huge groups of folks ratify.

 

[GaryDog]

As they should. It's bullshit to throw fairy tales into rational policy.