Talk Elections

---

Sponsor: Marokai Blue

The language of this bill sucks. Someone might want to change it to this:

Regional Senate Partnership Amendment

1. Any region may enter into a Senate Partnership with any other region, or regions, following approval by all regions in question by popular referendum.

2. In these Senate Partnerships regions shall combine their regional Senate elections, electing a number of Senators equal to the amount of regions in the Senate Partnership simultaneously.

3. The voting system in the combined Senate elections must be agreed upon by all regions involved in the Senate Partnerships.


I'd also suggest amending number three to require the PR-STV system used in at-large elections.

Alright, this deserves explaining:

Say the Northeast and the Midwest want to enter into a Senate Partnership. Both regions hold a referendum seeing if the people want to enter into the partnership, and if both agree, then they enter the partnership together.

In the regional Senate elections, their positions are then combined. The people of the Midwest and Northeast now elect a combined number of 2 Senators, and the voters of the Northeast and Midwest vote together, like an at-large election.

The same sort of proposal could be made between, say, the Southeast and the Mideast, the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific, or any number of combinations, and the process works the same.


Yes it was very hastily written, I was given the idea earlier in the day, but I found it fascinating and simply had to get it on the floor as soon as I could. Consider it amended by my hand unless someone objects.

Of course, some work will also have to be written on if a region wants to dissolve/leave the partnership, but I think this is a fantastic idea.

     I think if a region were to leave the partnership, that might undermine the goal I think you have in mind in proposing this.

What so they should enter the partnership and be trapped in there for all eternity?

Regions have a right to merge elections. Don't let the federal government dictate how a region can elect its own representative, PiT.

Yes it's a very pro-regional rights proposal. ;)

A Senate "Partnership"? While I'm interested in the idea, this idea seems like a more moderate proposal in the discussions of abolishing Regional Senate Seats.

It's voluntary.

It allows regions to make the decision to join their elections or not. There is no abolishing of any seats or attempt by the federal government to make them at-large.

This proposal follows a key regionalist line: It lets the regions decide.

I read. It just seems like that is a possibility if that is passed.

That just sounds conspiratorial to me. That has nothing to do with this proposal.

Let's just stick to this topic this time.

Then it will be the regions and the people that eliminate that representation, not the federal bullies.

Yes, I see that it lets the regions decide. It is an interesting concept, but It seems like a far-off possibility is the voluntary abolition of Regional Senate seats. I'm just curious about the idea. I'm interested in how this proceeds.

A possible prognosis isn't relevant to the proposal? It was merely a question. I'm not saying that is your aim, I'm just analyzing a possible result.

     Pointing out the possible results of passing this amendment makes you a conspiracy theorist, apparently. :P

That isn't a possible result.

     Because there is a section that specifically forbids all five regions from entering into a single partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

That's rather unlikely, though, and even if through some miracle it happened, it would be the choice of every single regional government. I would be hesitant to allow my region to enter into any partnership, I'm sure others have similar reservations, but still support the idea.

Not even the government. The bill requires popular referendum. That being said, we should probably find a way to ensure that the referendum obtains a supermajority of about 60%.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

Opposition to this from the regionalists would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's the ultimate regional rights reform proposal, it leaves everything to the regions to decide. Opposition to such an idea doesn't show support for regional rights, it supports tyranny.

You're talking about the RPP, Marokai... They love tyranny, populism, and fascism.

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

This Amendment doesn't really do anything, however, PiT. Everything, literally everything, is left to the regions, right down to the voting system they want. This Amendment simply allows regions to decide if they want to form Senate Partnerships or not, anyone can deny a partnership with any other regions if they want, but it lets the regions decide.

Should we continue to entertain the senseless obstructionists?

I am currently neutral on this, but it is quite unfair to simply call "conspiracy" when someone makes a good point. The first thing I saw when reading through this and then seeing Hammy's PR-STV comment was, "This allows a majority of each region to get together and abolish regional Senate seats."

I would add a clause to allow regions to withdraw from this partnership.

We've already said that we need to find a way to allow withdrawal. I think I simple majority vote by popular referendum (called by the regional legislative body or Governor) should suffice.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

Marokai, this sounds like exactly the kind of "change for the sake of change" that you always, always oppose.  I'm a little surprised to see you putting it forward.

I oppose this for the simple reason that I don't see it enhancing the game in any meaningful way.  The nameless "amendment" that is currently failing had more to offer than this, IMO.

If this does pass, I won't really care...I don't think any regions will actually do this.

This change is to add a clause allowing regions to withdraw from the partnerships:

---

It's not change for changes sake, as it aims itself at a problem: regional seats as they stand, and allows regions to move on their own to increase competition and interest in the respective regions. It barely changes anything for the most part, which is one element of "change for changes sake" I've always opposed. Further, this, unlike other proposals, doesn't include needless new positions or complicated new sections of government.

It's a great idea that I've actually sort of fallen in love with. It's a fantastic idea that is simple, doesn't change very much, doesn't add anything complicated, and allows regions to move to fix a problem if they so desire to.

I beg you to consider this, Fritz.

I'm glad to see this has been generating discussion. :)  I personally would love to see the Southeast join a partnership, but I doubt that the electorate of my region would agree. Oh well.

Nonetheless, this is the most pro-region thing that's come through the Senate in some time.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

     I was trying to point out that it could be co-opted by anti-regionalists. Then there's taking into account Senator Fritz's observation that probably no regions will want to enact partnerships (perhaps unless guided to do so for the purpose of abolishing regional Senate seats).

I don't think there's any proof either way that people will enact a partnership, PiT, so it's kind of a stupid point to bring up.

Regional Senate seats are not in danger... It couldn't pass the Senate. The "amendment amendment" that would have made ratification easier failed in three key regions. Are you dense enough to think I would endanger regional seats without being provoked?

     Last time I checked, all five regions forming a partnership together would effectively do the same without a Senate vote.

Under my suggestion, that would require over 60% of voters in each region to approve that. And technically, they would still be regional Senate seats. The regions simply choose a different way of electing their own representation. What is so hard to understand about that? And you know what? If 60% of people in every region want something, it's hard to make a case against it.

Yes, but I have a difficulty imagining a region who voted against the abolition of regional Senate seats voting for a partnership including the five regions. What is the problem with people in regions deciding?

     The thing is that in that case it would just be like an outright amendment to abolish them only without the Senate involved. The odd thing about this amendment is that it gives regions a power that they don't really have an impetus to use. It would be like empowering the federal government by passing an amendment allowing the Senate to vote its powers away to another federal branch or the regions whenever it wished to.

Full support.

Opposition to this on regional rights grounds is hypocrisy.

     They would effectively be at-large, since they'd be elected in basically the same way as the Class B seats. Also, if public opinion is that strongly in favor of making the switch across the board, passing an amendment through the Senate should be possible without much trouble.

Once again PiT proves he doesn't understand anything. What, precisely, does this get rid of as you seem to be implying? Every analogy you come up with involved some sort of implication that we would be abolishing something?

Regions wouldn't be abolishing anything at all, they would simply combine their voters and their Senate seat with another region, creating two positions and doubling their voting bloc. You seem to act like this would suddenly abolish a regional Senate seat somewhere and shackle voters. It does no such thing.

The key to the opposition here is, PiT is coming up with tricky and unusual reasons to oppose it so the clear hypocrisy of regionalists not wanting to allow regions more control in their own system of representation isn't shown. Any regional rights supporter would be in favor of allowing this, and yet the same crowd is shaping up with predictable opposition on reasons that make little sense.

The Ridiculous Prude Parody just likes to serve as an obstructionist bloc instead of working toward real reform like the party I am a member of.

I'm confused now. Why are regionalists opposing giving regions more choice?

PiT hasn't explicitly come out in opposition to this, so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Another thing PiT doesn't seem to be understanding is that, believe it or not, members of a party aren't just in one region! A partnership between the Mideast and the Southeast would make sense for many in both regions, because it would unify certain voters. Similarly, the Pacific and the Northeast share many JCP members, and the Mideast and the Northeast share DA members and other misc. people.

The ability to unify parties, and also increase competition, may actually trump holding your own little stronghold for some people, you know.

Listen, Marokai, those are all good points, but could you make them without attacking PiT? :)

You're asking me to make points without attacking someone? Me? :P

It just feels like PiT is trying to find a way around the hypocrisy of a regionalist opposing a regional rights centered proposal. Even if he doesn't oppose it, I figure others will follow his lead.

You are only focusing on one part of the bill. This bill is giving the control of regional Senate seats elections to regions. Regions are gaining a power, yet, you are opposing it.

You must make a choice here. Either you support regions and support this, either you are against regions and oppose this. I think than you are not pro-region, you are pro status quo.

     On some level, I don't really care if it passes. I came to this topic to point out the possibility of eliminating regional Senate seats with it. I then got sucked into an argument when I was attacked.


     Generally speaking, I consider having a fairly spread out party a good thing, such that unifying the party would offer no great advantage. Of course, this introduces partisan wrangling to the system, which is probably not the worst thing that could happen. Hell, just go to party list & be done with it. I think everyone would be happier that way than in this slow lurch towards parliamentarianism.


     That quote had little to do with this bill. Of course there is the issue that the Southeast will likely never enter into any partnership, so you could also observe that this amendment doesn't affect me.

     There's no reason for me to oppose this bill if the observation that abolishing regional Senate seats is possible is a null factor, which it most definitely is if 60% is required to approve any partnership as Hamilton suggested.

I'm not sure what to make of this bill. It's 'out there'; the idea of 'twinning' Senate seats in this fashion is, as far as I know unique to the western world. It doesn't appear to be have been raised publically and there have been no calls for a system like this to be implimented.

What we would essentially have as a bloc, a constituency, a grouping whatever you want to name it of regions who decided to 'share' Senators. Two regions could elect say 2 Senators (probably under STV) However this is done in an arbitary fashion by agreement between regions. It dilutes the power of each individual region (by agreement) and would do nothing to address the disproportionality when it comes to representation based on population in regional seats.

Hopefully Senators will recall that I proposed a system where each region elected a number of Senators in proportion to their population. There was concern that elected a small number of Senators (2 or 3) at the one time under STV was not viable. Personally I would contend that it is viable (given its application to Scottish local elections with success) and I am interested to see that it's being floated here.

So I take it electing small numbers of Senators using STV is fine :) If so then part of the opposition to my plan based on that contention has dissapated and I am free to introduce it before the current Senate :D It is a system which is fair to the principles of representation based on regions, based on population and based on proportionality.

The point of this proposal was to join regions, if they desired, into larger voting blocs which could act as a sort of "midway" between one region electing a Senator and making all Senate seats at-large. It had nothing to do with how we were fine with electing smaller numbers of Senators via STV or to do with population numbers, it simply aimed to lessen, since we can't eliminate, the distorting effect of regional elections (which, by the way, your proposal wouldn't do a damn thing about) and increase competition and interest where possible that exists in the at-large elections, on a purely regional organizing level.

With all due respect, Afleitch, I don't think this is some platform for you to start advertising your completely different ideas with little imput on the current issue before your eyes. I won't get into debating your proposal because when it comes to this thread and this idea, it's neither here nor there.

I don't really get what your complaints are here though. It wasn't discussed before, even though it concerns an issue we've had countless proposals and outright battles over, and no one does this in the real world, even though that is wholly irrelevent? It doesn't dilute the power of any region because it's solely based on Senate elections, unless you're referring to the idea that it might break up party strongholds, which I don't know why you would complain about. So what's your deal here?

Marokai, also with respect to say my proposal does nothing to adress the 'distorting effect of regional elections' is odd. Tieing representation to population does exactly that. It means that a region of 20 and a region of 40 no longer elect the same number of Senators which regardless of whether you have one region or group them together would still exist under the status quo or this proposal. (two regions of say 20 and 20 could team and elect 2, two regions of 30 and 40 could team up and elect 2; so there would still be disproportionality) So under my plan no region has a 'distorting effect' as their representation and their strength would be based on population.

I'm not sure what to make of this either, which apparently makes a supporter of tyranny. I share some of Fritz's criticism that this is 'reform for the sake of reform' and I'm not really sure what it solves. And I'm not much a fan of the idea expressed by some that this would be means for parties with two important bases, like our base in the ME and NE, to merge together for some sort of partisan aim.

I'm also uneasy about clause 3 (or 4 now, whatever). I'll start out with proposing this amendment:

4. The voting system in the combined Senate elections shall be some form of proportional representation and must be agreed upon by all regions involved in the Senate Partnerships.

IF we are going to do this (a very big IF), the regions involved should be allowed to enact any voting system they see fit.

I tend to agree, the whole point of this is actually let regions do what they want.

I agree to a point. But of course 'any voting system' could allow any system, even if it is distinctly undemocratic.

To me, this looks like somewhat of an effort to abolish regional seats, as your longterm goal would be for all the regions to combine and elect 5 "regional" senators.

Don't you believe in regional rights?

There is nothing in this Amendment that I oppose, because it strengthens the regional system in Atlasia and promotes cooperation between the regions. But I doubt it would ever come to application. For this Amendment we need a majority in 2 regions, and I do not see coming

I'm not reading all of this, but this is obviously an attempt to eliminate regional senate seats.  However, I do like the idea of regions choosing their voting method

If two regions agree to merge for electoral purposes, combining their senators....how can a regional rights advocate like you be opposed to allowing them?

If that were what this bill would about that is one thing, but anyone cann this is an attempt to remove regional seats just as much as the bill to make amendments easier to pass was.  I'll admit the anti-regionalists are getting more clever, but we still won't fall for it.

Don't you get it? You are opposing regional rights here. If the Mideast and Northeast both AGREE, who are you to prohibit that?

He's DownSyndrome. He can't even support the Southeast's right to elect its own governor.

I give you guys props for trying to goat us into supporting this, but we see what it is.  Simply move a certain number of people into a region and then you can combine them.  Sure a region like the Dirty South may retain its independence, but other regions will lose their representation.  I am not willing to let that happen, every region deserves a seat.  That has been our first and foremost mission from the get-go and will continue to be

So you're forcing a region to act according to your will.

That's ok, I understand your thinking. Regional rights are only good as long as they serve your goal. Just admit it, it'd be a lot easier.

Regional rights are good as long as they are protecting the rights of the regions and not allowing people to use votes to remove those rights.  This is no different than holding an up/down vote on regional seats

Incorrect.

No region is forced to enter any partnership. The Southeast, for example, can refuse any and all partnerships and retains its own single senate seat.

You are advocating that we prohibit regions from deciding themselves how they want to elect their senator(s).

No one should be deprived of their regional representation because a vote occured that says they no longer have it.  This is about standing up for every citizen and making sure there voice is heard.

And how exactly is their voice not heard if their respective region enters a partnership? It would only be enacted through majority votes in both regions.

Do you know how easy it is to get a vote in a low turnout off-key election like that?  Xahar's fluke win in the Dirty South being the perfect example. 

What's your point? I don't see a problem with that. Anybody is able to vote that wishes to.

So you basically just acknowleged that with a simple vote you could eliminate regional senate seats, thank you for stating my reasons to be opposed to this

LOL, no.

I repeat, no region is forced to enter into such a partnership. No region is forced to give up it's regional seat.

I get the feeling you're supporting regional senate seats for the sake of regional senate seats rather than actually supporting regional rights.

Can a region or can it not vote to remove its regional representation?  I again cite Xahar's election that flukes can happen in elections that do not reflect the view of the people

If the region chooses it, then it IS regional representation. Are you really that dumb?

You clearly demonstrate that you couldn't give a s**t about regional rights.

I do care about regional rights, my senate record speaks for itself.  However, I do not want the possiblity of a fluke election destroying regional seats.  There should be 0 avenues to eliminate regional representation

Of course not. Not voting this amendment wouldn't prohibit anything, as the possibility does not exist currently.

The problem is, when you want to come back, you've got only one referendum with, of course, a greater chance to have an anti-regional majority...
So, when you've chosen to go one way, you can't really come back.

It makes me think about Denmark's and Ireland's referendums in the EU.
Provided they result in a "yes", all is good and you don't ask again: it's for eternity, sort of. But if it's a "no", you vote again...

This is not about regional rights, here. This is about opening a possibility for anti-regional rights Atlasians in the regions to lower regional power and/or representation on the federal level.

In the end, you may promote a 5-region partnership, for example... using a low turnout, once, among regional-rights defenders.

(FTR, I've voted in favour of the Amendment on Amendements. So I'm not "just another RPPer". Check my record and the Mideast Assembly. And check my icy exchanges with DWTL... I recall these points for those not used to my very, very scarce posts at the national level).

Got it. Regions shouldn't be free to decide for themselves.

If you hold a vote enough times, eventually it will pass by a fluke. 

You raise a valid point. I would certainly be willing to amend this to, a.) allow partnerships to be broken should a majority make that decision, b.) to only allow the proposition to be made, let's say, once every 4 months or so.

Would that make you feel more comfortable with this?

These partnerships aren't permanent. If Marokai would like to see myself or Xahar write up a few more amendments I would be glad to. I've already suggested raising the vote needed to enter a partnership and we obviously need restrictions on unassociated partnerships (MW+ME and MW+NE without ME+NE, for example) and a method of withdrawing from these partnerships, which I suggested should be a simple majority vote. I don't see this proposition as at all harmful to regional representation. All it does is expand regional representation and regional rights.

This is not the intent. It is an oversight that no method has been given to withdraw.

I like the core idea of this, IMO this give more power to the people to elect their regional Senator how they want.

I also think this bill is also an effort to create all at-large seats.

Alright for anyone who wasn't sold this bill has ulterior motives, Xahar and Hamilton had a hand in writing it

You don't believe regions should be able to decide themselves what they want?

Maybe, if it had something in that that limits the number of regions entering a partnership, them more people might support it. Maybe limiting the number to three or even two. Also something that said a region can only be in one partnership at a time. Also, maybe having the partnership limited to 6 month and at the end of that 6 months it goes vote again to see if the partnership stand or fails.

I don't like the motives of this amendment, and I think each region should elect one Senator, plain and simple.

No, I won't accept any limitations on how many regions can enter partnerships with each other. The whole purpose of this is to give regions as much power as possible to elect their senators.

So, for the record, you support overruling the will of the regions in order to maintain "one senator, one region"?

No, the purpose is a few people trying to basically create 10 at-large seats, hoping that all the regions band together to elect 5 "regional" Senators.

I don't see any point in doing that. I can agree to a limit on how often a partnership can be proposed with another region, but I see no point arbitrarily limiting the amount of partnerships that can be held or subjecting it to routine re-voting.

After reading this thread, and posts like this, I've become convinced that regional rights isn't about regional rights at all. The pro-regional rights crowd, as MaxQue said earlier, is "pro status quo" above all else. This proposal doesn't force anyone to do anything. Regions have complete and total control of everything involved in this system.

To DWTL: "Fluke" elections? That's a silly thing to complain about, there's not a damn thing we can do about that and if you lose an election, you lose an election. Do you have any idea the amount of "flukes" that would be required to reach your nightmare scenario, for heaven's sake? There would have to be a "fluke" in two regions, or three, or the entire flipping country.

This is not a secret plot to abolish regional Senate seats. This is a plan to give regions control over how they elect their representative. You have no argument against it other than that you just don't want it that way, which is starkly anti-region.

To Tmthforu94: It would take widespread opinion and a huge chain of events that never broke to get a situation where all five regions join in a partnership. It's a situation so unlikely that it's stupid to complain about it, and yet again, such a situation would depend on the vote of every single region so how can you POSSIBLY complain?

None of you want to give more power to the regions, you just want to regions to stay how you want them to, and disguise that sentiment as their "protection."


Then your ideas have become no less authoritarian than those who want all seats elected at-large. You want something your way, regional rights be damned.

And if EVERY SINGLE REGION agreed to that, how would this violate regional rights?

In reality, if at all, a couple of regions might form partnerships.

I don't understand how a regionalist like you could oppose respecting the will of the regions. I'm confused.

Why don't you just go ahead and come out and say it. You plan on using this to get rid of regions. I like the idea of partnership, but only if we limit the number of regions that can enter a partnership. Otherwise, I will not support it.

Why do you oppose letting regions themselves decide what partnerships they would like to create? Your opinion is very anti-regionalist.

As usual Devilman makes no sense and is only hurting a real argument.

Looks, lets face it the first move will be the Pacific and Midwest combining so that the JCP can score an easy double victory.   Perhaps then a merger of the Northeast and Mideast to keep the RPP from winning the Mideast seat.  We see what the idea is here, to increase liberal power

Supporters: This is a great plan that allows regions to have control over how they elect their representative with the great potential to increase competition and exciting and in these partnerships it allows...

Opposition: IT'S A CONSPIRACEEEEEEE!!!!111

Marokai, I don't want the status quo at all. I believe we need change, but good change. You guys say this will make the regions stronger, but it will not. If we don't limit the number of regions that can enter a partnership then it will make the regions weaker. You can try to hide behind the reform mask on this, but we can see what you are really trying to do. Make all senate seats At-large without getting rid of regions.

That's because you're presuming he has coherent, logical positions.
If you take the opening assumption that he's a random nonsense idea generator, your confusion will be assuaged.

Alright boss, good to hear you oppose regional rights so strongly.

As you may recall, the Pacific and Midwest have had a certain animosity historically. The JCP does not control the Midwest, and even if it did, what would be the difference between two JCP seats and a JCP double-seater constituency? Also, couldn't the Southeast combine with the Mideast to keep the RPP in power?

But, anyway:

Regional Self-Determination Amendment

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

Ah, you're right, that was indeed a very stupid assumption.

Just in case it's not clear, this is an amendment offered.

What a depressing back and forth this has been.

A simple majority in only one region should be enough to revert a "partnership". Otherwise, that's not respectful of regional rights.
Are the promoters of this amendment ready to include this ?

What is more, if there is no geographical continuity, that should not be possible. We're not in a virtual world...
Electoral geography means something and gerrymandering also.
Are the promoters of this amendment ready to include this ?

And a limit should be set: the total number of regions minus 1.
Otherwise, that's no more "regional" seats.
Are the promoters of this amendment ready to include this ?

Without these points included, please do not speak about regional rights.

But I must say that, even with these points included,
NOWHERE and NEVER does this sort of partnership has existed.... This is completely weird.

And, of course, there is still one big objection:
- regions are the basic entities of Atlasia
- regional Senators do represent a specific region: Article I, section 1, clause 2 of our Constitution: "No Person shall be a Senator who (...) is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent."
- you can't elect Senators in constituencies that doesn't fit regions, which should be represented by these senators.

Sorry if somebody else has already said this obvious thing before... but this thread begins to be pretty long to read.

So no need to shake the red cloth/rag....

Fabien, take a look at the amendment I wrote.

I thank you kindly for your well thought out response and for the points you made.

Ultimately, I would have to disagree with majority of it. I don't see why we need to make artificial restrictions on the regions as to who they should be allowed to establish partnerships with and with how many other regions this would be allowed.

It is VERY unlikely, but in the event that ALL 5 regions voted to establish a general partnership, I don't see why that would be much of a problem. As said, that is not the intent of this bill, but why not respect the wish of the individual regions?

I simply have become a little upset with people claiming this is a grand anti-region conspiracy. I'm not saying you belong to that group, BBF!

The word "partnership" is completely misleading.
This is just another method or another process to elect regional Senators.

So, when one talks about elections that take place in regional constituencies, the constituencies should be coherent. So a partnership between the Pacific and the North East would be a plain gerrymandering
(note that, on this point, I can't be accused to be simply in favour of rightist interests...
BTW, I thank you, Franzl, for considering my objections without any political bias)

And when one talks about regional senators that represent their regions (again, this is Article I of our Constitution), these senators shouldn't come from all the regions at once. Hence a partnership between all the 5 regions would be unconstitutional.
[/quote]


See my answer just above.


Well, maybe you're upset, but (apart from the fact that this remains a political game) you must understand that some Atlasians may be rightly worried, because, if the promoters of this amendment talk about respecting the will of the regions,
this proposal answers to absolutely no current regional demand.

Why amending our Constitution without necessity ?
If some senators were elected without any competition and 100% of the votes, well, this proposal may have a sense... But, today, that's not the case, thanks Dave.

I guess the "will" of our citizens in the different regions of Atlasia doesn't exist on this subject. More exactly, why creating weird reforms on issues that are not real issues ?
This "why" may of course disturb many of them.
To the point that a humble Mideasterner and Assemblyman like me, who never intervenes in the national debates, feels the need to object here.

The one thing I still don't understand is how this could ever really lead to the abolition of regional representation.

It seems very clear that some regions will outright refuse to sacrifice their personal regional representation.

There might not be regional demand, as you say, but what's the real harm in letting regions that mutually decide that they'd like to try this do so?


I mean, in order to pass a constitutiona amendment, you need a majority in 4 out of 5 regions. And even if a region objects, as long as 4 others vote in favor, that amendment is binding on all regions.

I would argue that allowing regions to decide themselves how to elect class A senators doesn't harm any region that doesn't want to participate. If the Southeast has no interest in participating, then they're perfectly free to object to any change to their current representation.

Basically, the standard here is even higher than for a constitutional amendment, as a constitutional amendment abolishing regional seats would only require 4 regions, whereas it couldn't happen under this proposal without the consent of every single region.

I personally don't see any threat to regions here.

     Combining the Mideast & Southeast would make it hard for the RPP to hold both seats, & would be a violently anti-DA move at that.

     I do like your proposed amendment a lot, though.

Of course it would; combining the Mideast and Southeast for electoral purpose makes as much sense as Fluffy's prophecies do.

Glad to see you like it.

Since no other Senator has done so, I present Xahar's amendment as an amendment.

The Pacific senator is correcting you by saying you than he was elected with 100% of votes without any competition. Well, I had a opponent, but he failed to came voting.

Yeah, perhaps BBF might like to do his research before speaking.


Can someone explain to me what it does and why it's been introduced? It seems purposely vague.

It is vague. It allows regions to do to their seats as they see fit.

Alright, I gave this some thought and consulted others and.. I accept Xahar/Fritz's amendment as friendly. 24 hours to object.

Perhaps the respectable President Pro Tempore might like to read each word of my sentence before posting.
"some senators" / "one senator": see the difference ?


BTW, the Pacific may really be the point of this proposal...

You claim to be objective and ideologically unbiased. Now, it's time to prove it by supporting an intelligent measure that just gives the regions the right to chose the way to elect their Senator. If you really care about facts and not about your party's interests, you must support it.

Time to change the thread title.

Yes indeed.

Well, then, who objects to letting regions decide how to choose their own Senators?

I do. This is obviously a conspiracy to deny regions there representation.

How pathetic, and how expected...

The only thing pathetic here is your sarcasm-detecting abilities. How expected...

It might create more competition as well if the Pacific decides to share elections with another region.

I still urge all senators to vote against this bill unless something is clearly stated that each region must still retain one senator.  Under what Xahar has proposed, the regions may still combine

Isn't that their right?

For reasons I have outlined no less than 10 times, no

Regardless of what happens with this bill I still intend to introduce a Senate reform bill along what I've pushed for this past month in the next session (if I'm still here :P )

So you oppose regional rights.

OK.

Don't worry, we don't need the agreement of the non-Senator to make it pass. ;)

DWTL's support is worth than more 1 vote.

It actually worths 0 currently.

No, it's worth about 10-15.

LOL There are 10 Senators, if you didn't know...

I would think Hamilton is referring to the ratification process where the RPP universally opposes this amendment making it very unlikely to pass

Bingo.

Then your hypocrisy, your lies, can be exposed for all to see.

There is no hypocrisy no lies at all, the supporters of this bill have just put their fingers in their ears and refused to acknowledge what we say and instead just shout that we hate regions and think everything is a conspiracy.  There is no conspiracy, its pretty easy to see what this is aimed at doing

The fact you oppose a bill doesn't mean anyone in the RPP is dumb as you. I remember the number of people saying "this man does not speak for me" last time.
Of course, it still remains zombies. But could you keep criticizing Hamilton if you start acting the same way ?

     I strongly support this amendment. I suppose I should introduce legislation in my region soon stating that we will not give up our exclusive right to representation by our Senator unless 70%+ vote in the affirmative, so as to nullify the threat of eliminating Regional Senate seats.

I recall Dan Adams ranting about wanting FPTP. Maybe you can go ahead and do that, too.

Perhaps legislation could be introduced in the Southeast requiring a two-thirds majority for any change.

Yes, it's important for us all to remember that the regions would set all the standards, literally everything, involved in their elections.

A final vote will be opened soon.

Regional Self-Determination Amendment

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

Right; a quick look at this again before bed.

Given that this is a constitutional amendment this would, If I am reading this correctly allow Regions to decide on the election system but also on qualifications for election?

So we could have some posters eligable for one class of Senate seat but not another? As some Senate seats could be elected under one system and some under another, does this mean that a region could abolish democratic elections completely, or do so by default by tightening the qualifications for holding office?

Madness. The language needs to be tightened up if this is the direction the Senate wants to go.

The reason is that Senators are currently required to reside in the region they represent. Obviously, this would be an issue if partnerships were created.

I don't think anyone would object to a clause mandating that Senators be elected democratically.

Likewise with 'qualifications' and what we mean by qualifying criteria as that could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything.

I'm not sure where the current text of the bill is but could someone introduce the amendment requiring a 75% approval and 50% turnout based on the average of the last two reguarly scheduled elections

The current text is that, DWTL.

Thank you Mr. Senator, in that I ask a senator introduce this amendment

2. In order for any change to occur to method of selection, the vote must meet the following conditions:
A. 75% of voters must vote in the affirmative
B. 50% of the total number of voters in the region in the last two regularly scheduled elections decided in half must vote

75% is too high for me....I might be willing to agree to 60%.

66%/50% compromise would work for me.  This should be easy, I don't see why at least the constituional amendment standard should not be held.

I'm really confused about this amendment now with the senate having only 8 senators

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

My God, you are a f-cking idiot! I swear, if anyone actually votes for you...

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%

Yet it is only two regions.  The constitutional amendment process requires that a popular vote of senators be held that reaches 2/3 AND 4/5 of regions pass it.  Here you are only asking the voters of two regions to vote in a simple majority.  I may actually be willing to come down to the 60% number, but 50% of the average of the number of voters in the last two elections is a huge sticking point.

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 :)

Its not 100% of those affected.  The 50% is a stick point to me because I am worried about the possbility of a special election being called (as many regions can do) and then something like a 3-2 vote ending a regional senate seat.  Its 50% of the average number of voters in the last two elections.  If the turnout is more than 50% less than the last election, that means the will of the people is not sufficently heard.

Let regions decide. No need to pander to Fluffy.

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.

I am one of the few in my party willing to even discuss amendments to this, if you can't win over me good luck winning over enough people to pass this in 4/5 regions.  The Dirty South is gone and the Mideast, Midwest, and Northeast are far from sure things

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.

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.)

I don't mind the word changing, however, I am willing to bring it down to 60% if that would get your vote

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.

     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 ;)

Well, we are all agreeing to that, except DWTL, who is imagining a plot to destroy regions.

Indeed it is. PiT is not an obstructionist; hence, his concerns have been taken into account.

One question from the gallery:

Does the proposal as currently written allow a single region to vote to terminate a voting partnership they previously entered?

Obviously, since regions are free to decide.

The current proposal is written as regions decide all. So, yes, a region can leave unilaterally a hypothetical partnership.

This has been debated to death. I don't think anything else meaningful will be added.

Time for a vote?

How many Senators there is now?

8. Rowan resigned and Yankee is absent. The RPP is not represented in this body as of today.

In the spirit of allowing this to move forward to a public vote, I will be voting Aye.

---

I hereby open the final vote on this Constitutional amendment.

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

Aye

Aye

Aye

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.

Aye

Nay

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....

Not really. No votes are final until the PPT declares it so. Marokai is unable to change his vote, being a non-Senator. If Marokai is to have his vote be counted differently (unable to change) that is a conflict.

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.

Nay for the record.

This was one of the most...'odd' constitutional bills put before the Senate. The text of the bill has changed a few times and none has addressed what is to be gained by having 5 regional seats not only elected differently (which can be argued) but also with a difference in qualification

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

There is nothing to stop regions setting a ludicrously high, discriminatory or undemocratic bar on qualification. I am not assuming that any regions will...but theres nothing to stop them doing so.

Along this line, the Pacific or Southeast could easily have the votes to set a party requirement for their regional senators.

Precisely.

The debate in this bill turned into a 'tit for tat' match between two factions playing the 'regional rights' card. This bill had nothing to do with that at all and I'm genuinely suprised that it passed as it was written. This bill has the potential to disrupt the democratic process.

As written it is a dangerous bill because of the potential that it can be used for partisan purposes to 'lock' out voters that the supermajority don't wish to represent them. DWTL's objections demanding a high threshold in regions was actually pretty reasonable given these concerns.

I'll vote such a thing in Pacific and Southeast doesn't have the votes to do it.

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

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 :)