Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Franzl]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

The standards I am proposing are STRICTER than for constitutional amendments!

[Franzl]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

The standards I am proposing are STRICTER than for constitutional amendments!

Only if you require 4/5ths of regions to approve the change

Certainly. We require ALL involved regions to approve. 100%>80%

[Franzl]

Why is it the Southeast's concern if the Midwest and Mideast want to arrange a partnership?

They're not being forced to do anything.

100% of those affected must approve, I think that's a pretty fair standard

[Franzl]

Well if the turnout requirement were the only way to pass this, then I wouldn't stand in its way, but I'd prefer to not restrict regional rights more than necessary.

We'll see what happens.

[Franzl]

Well if the turnout requirement were the only way to pass this, then I wouldn't stand in its way, but I'd prefer to not restrict regional rights more than necessary.

We'll see what happens.

Would you mind introducing my proposal with the number changed from 75 to 60 as an amendment?

Oh yeah, that's no problem. It's important for the Senate to decide what's best.

[Franzl]

2. In order for any change to occur to method of selection, the vote must meet the following conditions:
A. 60% of voters must vote in the affirmative
B. 50% of the votes cast in the most recent election, whether regional or federal, but not the ratification of constitutional amendments, must be cast.

(Changed the wording a bit, hope you don't mind.)

[Franzl]

Well I can't say I honestly support it. I don't see any real need for additional restrictions on regional rights.

The same way that elections to offices work and the ratification of constitutional amendments, there are no turnout requirements. This, of course, places responsibility on the voter to make sure his voice is heard.

I have proposed this amendment to allow my fellow senators to vote on it and decide what system is best. I can't personally vote in favor of it.

I would still vote for the final bill, though, regardless of whether this amendment passes. It's a compromise that would be acceptable to me, if necessary.

[Franzl]

    Regions should be able to unilaterally change the requirements for their own vote if they so wish.

That's actually an even better idea.

Although I think that would already be the case under Xahar's proposal

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hereby open the final vote on this Constitutional amendment.

Please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN. 6 votes in favor are required for passage.

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

Aye: 4
Nay: 1

I'm not counting Marokai's vote....don't think I'm allowed to now that he's no longer a senator.

Two more votes in favor are necessary for passage.

[Franzl]

Aye: 4
Nay: 1

I'm not counting Marokai's vote....don't think I'm allowed to now that he's no longer a senator.

Two more votes in favor are necessary for passage.

Basis?

In theory, I'd argue that, considering the total number of senators determines how many votes in favor are required for passage, that it would be impossible to count the vote of someone who no longer belongs to the body.

Of course it could also be argued that the number of senators when the vote begins is relevant, I guess....

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've read through the rules a bit, and no where do they state what to do with the votes of senators that have resigned or otherwise left office.

This here is the procedure for handling the votes of senators whose terms have expired and been replaced by someone else.

This passage leads me to believe that my original decision in this matter was incorrect, and to provide precedence for similar situations in the future, and to be consistent in applying the rules of the Senate, I will count Marokai's vote.


Aye: 6
Nay: 2

Two-thirds of senators having voted in the affirmative, this Constitutional amendment has enough votes to pass.

Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Franzl]

This amendment has passed. I request that the governors open a vote as soon as possible in their regions.

[Franzl]

Fwiw, CheeseWhiz v Senate of Atlasia means that this Amendment has not passed.

I would have to disagree there, unless I just overlooked something important in the ruling.

We clearly only have 8 senators currently in office....but that's still a majority of what the Senate should be.

And 6 of those 8 senators voted in favor of passage.

A quorum was present....

What am I missing?

[Franzl]

Fwiw, CheeseWhiz v Senate of Atlasia means that this Amendment has not passed.

I would have to disagree there, unless I just overlooked something important in the ruling.

We clearly only have 8 senators currently in office....but that's still a majority of what the Senate should be.

And 6 of those 8 senators voted in favor of passage.

A quorum was present....

What am I missing?

Ah, I didn't know that there were only eight Senators at present - if that's true, ignore what I wrote (unless the ruling was even worse than I remember). Though I note five votes in favour (IIRC the new Justice's vote doesn't count because of CheeseWhiz v Atlasia. Again, might have remembered the details wrong. Six in favour if I've remembered right) and three against.

Yeah, there are 8 senators now...and 6 voted in favor