A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE

[Purple State]

Sorry all. Religion before forum.

I have to ask everyone to give this time. While it would seem appealing to simply gather the hodge-podge and bring it to a vote, you risk simply ending up with a mess, rather than any coherent plan to promote competition and activity. Bear in mind that these reforms aren't meant to mean much at face value. Rather, the potential impact that they have in promoting wider, top-down change is what we must ensure. And that takes time.

@NC Yank (and everyone else, really):

I would agree to apportion far more power to the regions (for their courts, jurisdiction, etc.), as well as establish a CoG, if we could eliminate the regional Senate seats. The issue really is I hesitate to add seats in the current, non-competitive environment here. That said, I ran my Senate campaign on a platform promoting regional sovereignty, and I meant it.

Let me outline the benefits to a CoG-chamber without regional Senate seats:

• Each region gets to choose how to elect its governor.
• We eliminate the redundancy of a region-wide vote on its Senator followed by a region-wide vote on its Governor.
• Provides greater power to regions at the federal level than the status quo (at present, regions need all 5 senators to vote Nay to block a bill, a CoG would only need 3 in agreement).
• Makes Governors more important in elections, prompting competition, especially with the regional senator position removed.

With all that, I have no problem moving certain powers, that we can work out if you accept this premise, from federal domain to the regions. In my view, this would make Governors even more important, as well as promote the creation of coherent regional legislative structures (whether legislature or initiative).

[Purple State]

That's why we should either: a) eliminate them or b) empower them.

[Purple State]

Why did the whole thing go to hell while I was enjoying a nice Sunday?

@NY Yank's compromise: I don't think we should create prominent legislature positions that are appointed, rather than elected by the people. Not only that, but giving governors a dummy seat to install a copy-cat vote in the Senate deteriorates the current standing of the national seats. The goal here is to try to maintain some balance of power between the regional and national levels. While I believe in empowering the regions in their own jurisdiction, I don't think an acceptable compromise should  strengthen regions at the national level while severely weakening the national frame.

@MaxQue/Lief: That isn't a compromise, nor does it reduce the number of available offices.


I think everyone needs to realize that your agendas are not going to pass on their own. You can't pass regional empowerment that drastically reduces the power of the national, as well as the voice of the people. Nor can you try to whittle away the power and influence of the regions. You all need to be able to come to some sort of compromise that generally maintains the current power divisions, while also helping the game.

So, rather than tell us what you all would like to have, detail what exactly you are willing to give in order to make game reform happen.

[Purple State]

This will probably be shot down, but what if there was a way use an electoral college-like system to elect half the at-large senators. This way, regions would have some influence of part of the legislature. Not sure how it would be done, but...

I wouldn't mind giving regions some sort of proportional representation system, where larger regions have greater influence, but how that would work is another story.

If we go back to my original amendment about reform, we could leave regional Senate seats be and create a lower house, one with certain limited powers, that is made up of X members of each region, based on population and reapportioned every few months as determined by the SoFA. We wouldn't change regional boundaries, but just update their proper representation.

We could also require that those members of the lower house be chosen (as determined by the region) from among their regional elected officials. So this could mean Governor, Assemblymen, etc. Whatever the each regional Constitution dictates.

Thoughts?

[Purple State]

In response to the preceding post.

I agree on leaving regional senate seats alone and creating another chamber for a bicemeral legislature. It should use districts as in real life (see "Regarding the House of Representatives" here). I am undecided on the role of the SoFA though. I also agree on leaving the regions themselves alone.

I strongly disagree with your third paragraph though.

The role of the SoFA would be no different than it is now, except he would: a) determine the number of citizens in each region and then b) determine what number of reps each region receives based on its citizenry.

The third paragraph is the only thing to ensure that we have regional reform.

[Purple State]

@NC Yank: Good to hear.

@Officepark: The reform I mention is that the plan would spur changes in the regions. For example, by requiring that members of the lower house come from elected positions in the regions, it automatically forces regions to create certain elected positions (such as a legislature). For those that maintain an initiative style of government, it would give the Lt. Gov. something to do.

@Lief/MaxQue: What are your thoughts on my idea? It involves no CoG and would promote interesting, varied ways in which each region elects and chooses its representatives in the lower house. That could help spur some regional activity, reforms, etc. It also doesn't increase the number of elected positions, but does increase competition for these new, exclusive seats.

[Purple State]

I'll try to write something up tonight after work. You can all try to work something out on your own in the meantime. Does anyone want to answer my earlier call and tell me what you're willing to give up? Or is everyone staunchly opposed to any variation of what they envision?

[Purple State]

My proposal (and no, its not a carbon copy of my previous proposal, read carefully):


The following shall be included in Article I as Section 2: The House, with subsequent sections renumbered accordingly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 5 shall hereby be renumbered Section 4 and read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 8 is hereby removed.

Article IV shall hereby read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

I see no outright deal breakers in this proposal, however I would prefer some time to study it in detail and compare it to the current constitution.

However I do find it exceedingly interesting that the distinguished presiding office no longer deems necessary the reduction in the the number of office holders. Indeed from what I can see the distinguised presiding officer is adding a considerable number of offices far more then even my plan did. Would the distinguised presiding officer care to explain his sudden change of heart on this matter?

I don't actually add anything. The 10 members of the House would be drawn from existing officeholders on the regional level (i.e. governors, lt. governors, assemblymen, CJOs). While the regions may add offices on their own, the proposal does not directly create positions.

Also, what led me not to reduce the number of seats is that there was no seats I could remove. You wouldn't accept the removal of regional senators and there was no way at-large seats, the more exciting races, could be removed. I will hear ideas for what seats can be removed if anyone has thoughts.

[Purple State]

I see no outright deal breakers in this proposal, however I would prefer some time to study it in detail and compare it to the current constitution.

However I do find it exceedingly interesting that the distinguished presiding office no longer deems necessary the reduction in the the number of office holders. Indeed from what I can see the distinguised presiding officer is adding a considerable number of offices far more then even my plan did. Would the distinguised presiding officer care to explain his sudden change of heart on this matter?

I don't actually add anything. The 10 members of the House would be drawn from existing officeholders on the regional level (i.e. governors, lt. governors, assemblymen, CJOs). While the regions may add offices on their own, the proposal does not directly create positions.

Also, what led me not to reduce the number of seats is that there was no seats I could remove. You wouldn't accept the removal of regional senators and there was no way at-large seats, the more exciting races, could be removed. I will hear ideas for what seats can be removed if anyone has thoughts.

I am sorry, as I said I need to study the thing in detail, I didn't notice that this would be like dual office holding. Let me read, compare, and think and I will get back to you on this. Oh I am not criticing the proposal for not reducing offices, I still do not see the necessity in reducing them. But the left will not except this proposal, I can tell you that right now. They want offices reduced yesterday.

I would like to hear what they have to say. This is the best starting point for a compromise I could think of.

Everyone is welcome to offer their ideas, but bear in mind this is a compromise proposal and you will not get everything you want.

[Purple State]

I would rather we not revert back to districts if, as I am told, those failed miserably. It also means that there would have to be someone qualified to open and close and certify district elections, which would cause all sorts of issues and complications.

[Purple State]

For me, a CoG and an at-large 10 seats Senate is an good compromise.

^^^^

It may not cut Regional power, but it does cut regional influence, especially if the CoG can only vote and not propose legislation.

OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!

If you have regional influence, I want special influence for right-handed people.

How many babies have you eaten today, Xahar? What happened to your Revolution, you didn't give me a chance to fire my wiff of grapeshot. .

I'm getting bored of it.

But no, seriously.

What do regions have intrinsically that entitle them to special influence? I've been asking this for well over a year now.

But I was having fun. .

Then recruit people to my side.

But first, answer my question.

The honest answer to your question is that regions have special influence because: a) they must confirm anything we pass and b) they have a hell of a constituency. No amendment removing regions, even were it to pass the Convention or Senate, would make it through the regional votes. On the other hand, nothing considerably weakening the national government would pass either. That is why we need to compromise in such ways.

Would it be nicer and more efficient if we could pass the best possible reform? Of course! Unfortunately, entrenched interests rule in this game and so that is what we must work with.

[Purple State]

Does the Lief/MaxQue crowd have any thoughts regarding my compromise proposal?

[Purple State]

Does the Lief/MaxQue crowd have any thoughts regarding my compromise proposal?

Personally, I don't like imposing on regions the way to choose their representative.

I tried not to, hence the clause about regions choosing which officials to send based on their own laws. They could simply choose by popular vote among the officials, by gubernatorial appointment, by set positions. It actually allows for quite a bit of variety is my hopes. And elected officials would be people chosen by the citizens already.

[Purple State]

There is no compelling reason to provide reverence to the regions, except that we no longer have the power to stop it. I also think the regions provide enough benefit to the game to warrant maintaining them and, yes, empowering them.

As to why I always find compromises, it is party for reasons of practicality, but also because compromise more than often results in a better outcome.

Unless there be additional comments or substantive debate, I will be bringing to the floor a proposal for fourty-eight hours of debate, followed by a vote.

[Purple State]

The following proposal is brought forth for a period of no less than forty-eight hours of debate. Amendments offered or sponsored by delegates shall be brought to a vote of the Convention unless they be accepted as friendly, at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.


The following shall be included in Article I as Section 2: The House, with subsequent sections renumbered accordingly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 5 shall hereby be renumbered Section 4 and read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article I, Section 8 is hereby removed.

Article IV shall hereby read as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Purple State]

I will only be replying to posts that are actually substantive:

1. I'm not sure I like this Second Empire-like bicameral system, and I much prefer true bicameralism if we do establish bicameralism. However, I could live with this system even though I'm far from a fan. I do appreciate the little steps taken to accommodate parliamentarianists, even if there's a majority of "omg evil evil foreigners with parliaments!!!" people.
2. I want the House elected by STV or some form of PR. No districts or any of that crap.
3. I introduce the following amendment:
Strike Article IV, Section 1, Clause 3.

While others do what I'm sure will be an adequate job of disagreeing with some of the main points of the article, I'll nitpick.

Maybe we could make it so judicial powers have to be devolved specifically to Regions by the national government?

I think both of the judiciary ideas from you two are worth looking into, as the regional courts are hardly used. But I would like to hear if anyone has an objection to simply abolishing regional judiciaries or, as ilikeverin posed, require that certain laws devolve jurisdiction specifically to regional courts.

[Purple State]

Substantive? What more can be said about a proposal you've been trying to tinker with to get passed for weeks?

I'm not voting for this because it's unnecessary horseshit. That's why. We can't will regional activity and creating a bicameral legislature just for the sake of it is not helpful or at all needed. I've been almost completely ignoring this "discussion" because I think it's all complete garbage and looking for some way to push through change just for the sake or it, or to find some way to get Purple's previously-failed proposals tinkered with enough to get Ayes.

I think it's nice that you've taken up spurring regional activity as your little pet-cause, but it can't be done, it's all unsustainable and unnecessary. The Mideast Assembly started marvelously, and then crashed. Two seats went vacant, you have idiots or no-bodies working on irrelevent legislation, and it's generally just sort of a propped up cancer patient at the moment. The Pacific legislature includes votes from all Pacificans, and it's a corpse, and I don't see many people thrilled at the idea of a Northeast legislature even when given the opportunity. You keep pointing to regional legislatures or the Mideast Assembly in particular as great examples of regional excellence, and I don't see it.

Max/Lief's idea of 10 national Senate seats and the 5-seat Council of Governors as an Upper House is a perfectly reasonable idea that keeps within the current framework, spurs competition for Governor and Lt. Governor (which will now be much more important positions), and generally makes things a bit more exciting and competitive.

But despite what I just said, I don't think there's any way you can somehow stimulate more activity in any long-term way. Activity comes and goes, people come and go. At the end of the day we either abolish regions and go all out with the reform some people here have wanted since day one, or we stick with what we have and tinker a bit. Creating some retarded bastard child proposal like this is not going to do anything but change the system just for the hell of it.

I will never understand your obsession with complicating literally everything and trying to mold and twist every reasonable idea into something unrecognizable. I remember criticizing you for the same thing when we started this "game reform" crusade, and here we are, arguing over the same unnecessary BS as day one.

We aren't simply willing regional activity or reform. Just in order to set out how officials are elected to the House, regions will be forced to reform their Constitutions. And while they're at it...

While regional governments and assemblies may not be fountains of substantive or consequential legislation, they are meant to hold, your term, no-bodies in order to orient them to the game. When I joined the Mideast Assembly, I was a no body. Even if they don't do anything meaningful, members of these bodies learn from older members (Peter and Inks are fixtures of the Mideast and do an excellent job of orienting new members; Duke has stated his interest in serving on a Southeast legislature). It also allows them to learn the legislative "lingo" and parliamentary procedure.

While you are correct that a CoG would spur competition for the office of governors, this proposal would do the same for the offices in each region that are designated to represent the region in the House.

I don't see how any of this is too complicated. People here aren't a bunch of bumbling fools. If you outline what is necessary and if people spend time working their way up the levels of the game it becomes pretty easy to figure things out. This isn't overhauling anything. All it does is add a new dimension with the hopes of leading people to approach the game in a more excited way.

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

So basically you just want your proposal passed instead? Also, as I said, I think forcing the regions to do anything is a bad idea and I'd rather abolish regional government entirely than start dictating how everything is going to be laid out.

My proposal is the only one that took into account all of the vested interests, resolved underlying conflicts and produced a neutral proposal that could garner wide-spread support. It involves the same idea of a CoG with a twist.

[Purple State]

In that case, Article IV, Section 1, Clause 3 is stricken with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly.

Other thoughts?

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

Thanks Purple State, you just explained why I am against that proposal. That forces the region to reform. The Mideast tried to reform in a way. Now, you are pushing all the regions in the same way. Each region can have a different system.

And this will break the 50-50 equilibrum of the regions and the nation. This will go 75-25 for the regions.

Regional reform doesn't imply identical reform Max. I want them all to reform, but I sincerely hope they do so with their own regional flavor. If you are against regional reform and oppose providing a venue for new members to be introduced to the game in a substantive way, that is your prerogative. But it is clear that when a region reforms and has a relatively active regional government, new members seem to join in larger numbers than those regions that sit idle and void of activity. It's about providing new members with something to do.

As to the equilibrium, perhaps we could strengthen the President to balance that. Any thoughts?

[Purple State]

Before I bring both of those to a vote Max, I just want to make sure you understand why I have it that the House is chosen from among elected officials of the region. It is to add some competition for the regional seats, as well as some competition and novelty to the different regions in how they choose their national representatives.


I now bring each of Max's amendments (found in the above post) to individual votes. The voting shall last 24 hours. I will waive the quorum requirement as half the delegates don't bother to show up. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain for each individual amendment separately.

[Purple State]

I ask why my amendment, proposed first, is not up to a vote.

I accepted the removal of the judiciary amendment as friendly.

[Purple State]

There is no compelling reason to provide reverence to the regions, except that we no longer have the power to stop it. I also think the regions provide enough benefit to the game to warrant maintaining them and, yes, empowering them.

In what sense?

Now I'm starting to get really upset that nobody ever answers my questions. Note that my comment wasn't originally directed at you.

I'm answering them and few others participate in here.

And regions are beneficial in the sense that they provide fertile grounds for new members to become familiar with the game and some senior members. If you look at the Mideast Assembly, even when not a vibrantly active legislature as it once was, it gives new citizens a place to learn what crafting a bill entails, parliamentary procedure and how to work with more senior members like Peter and Inks. It's a better orientation than the Introduction to Atlasia thread, without a doubt. It also gives these new members a sense that they are climbing the ladder, contributing, etc.