Parlimentary procedure, or "beating the dead horse"

From my skewed viewpoint, parliamentary procedure is too ridiculous to go uncommented upon.  You'll see why soon enough.

   First of all, speakers in parliament must be recognized by the chair before they are allowed to speak.  We have no way of knowing how a chair can do such a thing and even when, since for all intents and purposes a chair is an inanimate object.  A person could live their whole life and never know that they were recognized by a chair.  Because of this, a person is selected to speak for the chair, and for lack of a better name. is given the title "chairperson."  The chairperson possesses amazing psychic abilities, for they sense who the chair chooses to recognize, and the chairpersom makes that choice known to the rest of us. 

Speakers ask for permission to speak by rising and saying, "Mr. or Madame Chair."  (Notice the speaker must address the chair, not the chairperson.)  The chairperson then states whether the chair recognizes the speaker.  If the speaker is recognized, then they can continue to speak or make a motion.  (Usually speakers make a motion in their lower jaw as they speak, so motions are unavoidable.)

   Each motion must be seconded.  Whether this means a vote must be raised in favor of the speaker's moving jaw, or whether it means that a second person must also move their jaw the same way, I don't know.  (Hmm.  I sense this line of thought is already beating a dead horse.

   Now, beating a dead horse is a different motion altogether.  If no one seconds my beating of the dead horse, I must stop beating it.  However, if someone else decides it is a good idea, they can second the motion by also beating the dead horse.

 

   We'll assume my motion of beating the dead horse was seconded., so the chairperson says that the chair has called for a debate on the motion of beating a dead horse.  (At this, everyone looks at their neighbor and shrugs, because no one heard anything that sounded remotely like a chair raising its voice, and the chairperson could be just plain nuts, but maybe the sound of the dead horse being beaten drowned out the chair.)

Then people begin to debate the beating of the dead horse.  (I don't know if the beating stops for the debate or not.  Well, I suppose it'd have to because that would be too many motions which would each have to be seconded.)  Speakers can speak for five minutes about the ethics of the beating, and the chair has to remember to alternate hearing speakers for and against the beating.  Speakers can propose amendments to the beating of the dead horse, but those have to be considered a separate beating in and of themselves, thus requiring someone to second them and everybody to debate them.  The amendment to the beating of the dead horse must be voted on before the actual beating can be voted upon. 

When everyone has commented for or against the beating who desired to, the chair calls for the question (vote) on the actual beating of the dead horse (which by now should be very very dead).  If someone objects to the question being called on the grounds that the whole thing is stupid and it is beating a dead horse to continue to even talk about it, then the chair can call for a previous question, and everyone can vote on whether to vote on whether to continue to beat the dead horse.  The vote is carried out by saying "yea" or "nay".  If everyone yells "YEA!", then the horse is definitely dead.  BUT!  If there is a resounding "NEIGH!" , then the horse is not quite as dead as we thought and needs to be beaten some more.