Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: bgwah on November 24, 2011, 03:12:23 AM



Title: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (sent to regions)
Post by: bgwah on November 24, 2011, 03:12:23 AM
Quote
Ratification Regionalization Amendment

Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution shall be amended to read the following:

1. The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by three-quarters of the Regions.

2. Regional governments shall choose, in accordance with their lawmaking process, from the following methods of ratification for all Constitutional Amendments:

2a. Referendum in which passage is determined by a simple majority.
2b. Passage through the lawmaking body of the Region.
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region.

3. Procedure for ratification of Amendments may only be changed by the lawmaking body of a region once every 60 days.

4. Regions may re-attempt or later rescind ratification of Amendments at their discretion, determined through the lawmaking body of the region, as there shall be no deadline or expiration of Constitutional Amendments passed by the Senate. Regions may not rescind ratification of Amendments that have come into full effect.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Napoleon on November 24, 2011, 02:46:17 PM
I can support this one.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 24, 2011, 07:35:51 PM
The governor signing it is all that will be needed to ratify an amendment? I'm not sure I can get behind that one.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on November 24, 2011, 09:32:05 PM
Yes, remove or heavily modify 2c. It might be good to allow Regions to give their Governors some say in this through some other mechanism--perhaps giving them the option of whether or not to allow a gubernatorial veto of an amendment ratified by referendum or by the legislature?--but a Governor being able to unilaterally ratify a Constitutional amendment in the name of his or her Region does not sit well with me.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 25, 2011, 04:59:31 PM
I offer the following amendments and one of the two conditional amendments based on whether the first is adopted or not:

Quote
2. Regional governments shall choose, in accordance with their lawmaking process, from the following methods of ratification for all Constitutional Amendments:

2a. Referendum in which passage is determined by a simple majority.
2b. Passage through the lawmaking body of the Region.
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region.

Regional governments may select a combination of the above methods as well.

And if the above passes:

Quote
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region. Regions may not use this method, unless it is part of a process that includes either 2a or 2b also.


And if not:
Quote
Section 2c is stricken from the text


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 25, 2011, 05:11:27 PM
Granted, if the legislature passes it and the governor signs the amendment, I would live with that, but not the governor passing it unilaterally without any input from the legislature.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 25, 2011, 05:30:43 PM
Really?

I always believed that our most important legal document can be amended only with consent of the people. Legislatures? Only if they all are universal legislatures like in Midwest, which is not going to happen. Gubernatorial signature? Ratyfing or rejecting an amendment on behalf of the region by just one person? Really?

Regional rights? Constitution is a federal matter so I couldn't care less.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 25, 2011, 07:31:38 PM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 25, 2011, 09:20:43 PM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

Our current system is a one-off procedure and delightfully dull.

Really?

I always believed that our most important legal document can be amended only with consent of the people. Legislatures? Only if they all are universal legislatures like in Midwest, which is not going to happen. Gubernatorial signature? Ratyfing or rejecting an amendment on behalf of the region by just one person? Really?

Regional rights? Constitution is a federal matter so I couldn't care less.

So long as ratification of Amendments is done on some sort of regional breakdown, regions certainly deserve some sort of say. Currently, Amendments exist in this weird silly little middle ground, where it's kind of regional, but kind of national, and always a complete one-off procedure that requires passage through the Senate again if that Amendment is ever to be voted on again. I think we should either go all-out with ratification and make it a more regional matter, or go all-out with ratification and make it an entirely national referendum, with a set percentage of votes for ratification.

But either way, I really dislike the current way Amendments just sort of disappear if they fail ratification. For all the talk of people claiming Atlasia should be based on the US, that's not actually how the US ratifies Amendments. If we wanted to ratify something that passed a century ago, we still totally could. I think that, at least could be interesting here.

Granted, if the legislature passes it and the governor signs the amendment, I would live with that, but not the governor passing it unilaterally without any input from the legislature.

I'm open to changing that.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 25, 2011, 09:29:10 PM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

Our current system is a one-off procedure and delightfully dull.

Is it the same one we had a couple years ago? That one is awful, too, of course.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on November 26, 2011, 12:32:34 AM
why would the regions be limited in the threshold needed for a popular vote? that is a peculiar lack of latitude given the other options allowed.   

3 is problematic, as it will keep from correcting unforeseen problems.  the language is ambiguous also - may the changes by made by a popular vote or regional constitutional amendment more often than 60 days? I think generally, this should be a constitutional rather than mere legislative item for the regions with a working constitution.

another suggestion: allow regions to decide procedure issues on the vote, such as how long the booth is open and whether a person may change their vote, whether a quorum much be reached, etc.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 26, 2011, 12:45:36 AM
why would the regions be limited in the threshold needed for a popular vote? that is a peculiar lack of latitude given the other options allowed.

I don't understand what this complain is trying to get at, sorry. Could you clarify?

Quote
3 is problematic, as it will keep from correcting unforeseen problems.  the language is ambiguous also - may the changes by made by a popular vote or regional constitutional amendment more often than 60 days? I think generally, this should be a constitutional rather than mere legislative item for the regions with a working constitution.

..What? I'm sorry, again, I feel like you're not understanding something here. 3 is designed to keep regional legislatures from abruptly changing the ratification procedure all the time if the current ratification procedure didn't lead to an outcome of their liking. Do you understand what this Amendment is doing? That is an honest and genuine question. I'm not entirely sure what's ambiguous about it.

Quote
another suggestion: allow regions to decide procedure issues on the vote, such as how long the booth is open and whether a person may change their vote, whether a quorum much be reached, etc.

Why should that be the case? Not that I'm necessarily opposed, but, this is treading dangerously close to just also allowing regions to outright restrict votes. A quorum, specifically, seems like an unfair thing to institute. I'm certainly in favor of allowing regions to tinker with their own ratification procedure, but there must still be some standard of fairness.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 26, 2011, 12:46:22 AM
I offer the following amendments and one of the two conditional amendments based on whether the first is adopted or not:

Quote
2. Regional governments shall choose, in accordance with their lawmaking process, from the following methods of ratification for all Constitutional Amendments:

2a. Referendum in which passage is determined by a simple majority.
2b. Passage through the lawmaking body of the Region.
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region.

Regional governments may select a combination of the above methods as well.

And if the above passes:

Quote
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region. Regions may not use this method, unless it is part of a process that includes either 2a or 2b also.

And if not:
Quote
Section 2c is stricken from the text

I'll accept the first two as friendly. Not the last.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 26, 2011, 12:52:54 AM
Well if the first one passes, the third one goes bye bye anyway. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 26, 2011, 12:53:21 AM
Well if the first one passes, the third one goes bye bye anyway. :P

Acceptable. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Napoleon on November 26, 2011, 03:40:39 AM
why would the regions be limited in the threshold needed for a popular vote? that is a peculiar lack of latitude given the other options allowed.

I don't understand what this complain is trying to get at, sorry. Could you clarify?

Quote
3 is problematic, as it will keep from correcting unforeseen problems.  the language is ambiguous also - may the changes by made by a popular vote or regional constitutional amendment more often than 60 days? I think generally, this should be a constitutional rather than mere legislative item for the regions with a working constitution.

..What? I'm sorry, again, I feel like you're not understanding something here. 3 is designed to keep regional legislatures from abruptly changing the ratification procedure all the time if the current ratification procedure didn't lead to an outcome of their liking. Do you understand what this Amendment is doing? That is an honest and genuine question. I'm not entirely sure what's ambiguous about it.

Quote
another suggestion: allow regions to decide procedure issues on the vote, such as how long the booth is open and whether a person may change their vote, whether a quorum much be reached, etc.

Why should that be the case? Not that I'm necessarily opposed, but, this is treading dangerously close to just also allowing regions to outright restrict votes. A quorum, specifically, seems like an unfair thing to institute. I'm certainly in favor of allowing regions to tinker with their own ratification procedure, but there must still be some standard of fairness.

Why limit region's to using a majority vote instead of, say,  2/3? Why would regions be able to legislate amendment ratification processes rather than making it constitutional?


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 26, 2011, 06:19:39 AM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

I wish we'd do it, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: bgwah on November 26, 2011, 06:26:11 AM
Can't we just try the 4/5 regions or 60% nationwide thing again? :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 26, 2011, 07:30:56 PM
Why limit region's to using a majority vote instead of, say,  2/3?

I have no inherent problem with that being a requirement; I just think the standard of passage should be universal. Changing the procedure is one thing, but creating an artificially high barrier to passage is a bit unfair.

Quote
Why would regions be able to legislate amendment ratification processes rather than making it constitutional?

I see what that means now, at least. I have no inherent problem here either, but would that really matter, that much?

Can't we just try the 4/5 regions or 60% nationwide thing again? :P

I'm fine with this too, but I doubt it stands a great chance of passing. Haven't we tried that like, three times? :P I simply thought it would be a neat idea to chance our ratification procedure to a more regional/American style, and make Amendments last forever after Senate passage. That last part, at the very least, is a reasonably uncontroversial idea, if all else fails.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 26, 2011, 07:55:11 PM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

I wish we'd do it, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

There's no reason it can't happen, except that people are stupid and knee-jerk reactionaries.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 26, 2011, 07:59:28 PM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

I wish we'd do it, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

There's no reason it can't happen, except that people are stupid and knee-jerk reactionaries.

Which is a perfect reason.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Napoleon on November 26, 2011, 08:13:52 PM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

I wish we'd do it, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

There's no reason it can't happen, except that people are stupid and knee-jerk reactionaries.

Be nice.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 26, 2011, 08:18:16 PM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

I wish we'd do it, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

There's no reason it can't happen, except that people are stupid and knee-jerk reactionaries.

Be nice.

I'm suprised I'm going to say this, but he got a good point. While I'm far from call you stupid or reactionary, remembering your examplary senatorial service just few weeks ago, your recent record of reforms is nonexistent and I'm still waiting to understant why have you adopted such an approach.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Napoleon on November 26, 2011, 08:27:34 PM
How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

I wish we'd do it, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

There's no reason it can't happen, except that people are stupid and knee-jerk reactionaries.

Be nice.

I'm suprised I'm going to say this, but he got a good point. While I'm far from call you stupid or reactionary, remembering your examplary senatorial service just few weeks ago, your recent record of reforms is nonexistent and I'm still waiting to understant why have you adopted such an approach.

What? One of my reform ideas is on the Senate floor right now. It has probably been less than a month since an entire Constitution I created was passed. I'm offended by your comments. Marokai and Xahar's misplaced commentary isn't the word of God.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 26, 2011, 10:23:53 PM
This isn't the side of Xahar I was nostalgic for by any means. :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 27, 2011, 01:09:30 AM
This isn't the side of Xahar I was nostalgic for by any means. :P

The reaction to my return was far too laudatory. I'm not accustomed to being well-liked, so I have to fix that somehow.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 27, 2011, 03:28:13 AM
So are my amendments on the previous page going to get considered? :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: bgwah on November 27, 2011, 03:31:09 AM
Senators have 24 hours to object to the friendly amendments.

Quote
2. Regional governments shall choose, in accordance with their lawmaking process, from the following methods of ratification for all Constitutional Amendments:

2a. Referendum in which passage is determined by a simple majority.
2b. Passage through the lawmaking body of the Region.
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region.

Regional governments may select a combination of the above methods as well.

Quote
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region. Regions may not use this method, unless it is part of a process that includes either 2a or 2b also.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: CatoMinor on November 27, 2011, 07:54:00 PM
With the proposed amendments added, I have no objections to this amendment.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on November 28, 2011, 11:04:14 PM
Why limit region's to using a majority vote instead of, say,  2/3?

I have no inherent problem with that being a requirement; I just think the standard of passage should be universal. Changing the procedure is one thing, but creating an artificially high barrier to passage is a bit unfair.
How can you say the standard of passage should be universal at the same time you are saying that in some regions it could be done without a popular vote at all, or that it may require the governor's approval in one region but not in another?  The whole point of this amendment seems to be to get rid of a universal standard of passage. And our standard for passage is already artificial, since there's nothing axiomatic about saying it should require the approval of 4 regions as opposed to 3 or 5.

Quote
Why would regions be able to legislate amendment ratification processes rather than making it constitutional?

I see what that means now, at least. I have no inherent problem here either, but would that really matter, that much?
[/quote]

For those regions who require a vote by both the legislature and the people at large to change their constitution, it would be significant.  The ambiguity in the current language is this: It either means that a change to the ratification process must be made only by the legislature AND only once every sixty days, or it means the change can only be made once every sixty days IF that change is by the legislature.
But here's the key issue: Somewhere along the way, a region is going to pass a change to the ratification process that is ends up being unintentionally impractical and unworkable for one reason or another.  And so they'll just have to wait two months to fix it - by which time people might have forgotten about it. If that's a risk you're willing to take, okay, but it's worth bringing up.


Quote
another suggestion: allow regions to decide procedure issues on the vote, such as how long the booth is open and whether a person may change their vote, whether a quorum much be reached, etc.

Why should that be the case? Not that I'm necessarily opposed, but, this is treading dangerously close to just also allowing regions to outright restrict votes. A quorum, specifically, seems like an unfair thing to institute. I'm certainly in favor of allowing regions to tinker with their own ratification procedure, but there must still be some standard of fairness.
A quorum would mean that an amendment would have to be voted on (either yea, nay or abstain) by some portion of the region, ex. 1/4 of its citizens.  I don't see that as unfair - it would be protection against ratification by a very small number of people. Allowing a vote to happen over more than 7 days (that could still be the minimum number) could let more votes be included.  I think the regions are competent to decide these things while still being more fair than having some regions have a popular ratification process while others do not.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: bgwah on November 29, 2011, 12:45:37 AM
The amendments have passed as friendly.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: bgwah on November 30, 2011, 03:35:11 AM
I believe this is what it currently looks like now:


Quote
Ratification Regionalization Amendment

Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution shall be amended to read the following:

1. The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by three-quarters of the Regions.

2. Regional governments shall choose, in accordance with their lawmaking process, from the following methods of ratification for all Constitutional Amendments:

2a. Referendum in which passage is determined by a simple majority.
2b. Passage through the lawmaking body of the Region.
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region. Regions may not use this method, unless it is part of a process that includes either 2a or 2b also.

Regional governments may select a combination of the above methods as well.

3. Procedure for ratification of Amendments may only be changed by the lawmaking body of a region once every 60 days.

4. Regions may re-attempt or later rescind ratification of Amendments at their discretion, determined through the lawmaking body of the region, as there shall be no deadline or expiration of Constitutional Amendments passed by the Senate. Regions may not rescind ratification of Amendments that have come into full effect.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: bgwah on November 30, 2011, 03:52:37 AM
The Fair Amending Procedure passed earlier this year. It was ultimately thrown out based on a technicality. But I don't think that means we should just give up on it forever and accept this instead.

Thus I'm offering the following amendment:

Quote
Fair Amending Procedure Amendment

Article VII, Section I of the Third Constitution of Atlasia is hereby amended to read:

The Senate, when two-thirds of its chamber shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by the people of Atlasia. In each region, a public vote shall be held regarding the ratification of a proposed amendment. Said vote shall last for exactly one week and shall be administered by the governor of the region or whichever office as the Law may provide. Citizens shall vote "aye," "nay," or "abstain" to a proposed amendment. To be ratified, the proposed amendment shall meet at least one of the following criteria:

I. Receive a simple majority in favor of the ayes (among all "aye" and "nay" votes) in at least four of the five Atlasia regions

II. Receive a three-fifths majority in favor of the ayes (among all "aye" and "nay" votes) in Atlasia at-large.

It should look familiar... :P


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on November 30, 2011, 07:45:56 AM
I do not accept your amendment as friendly on the grounds that this completely alters the point of the original legislation and you should bring it up separately.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: bgwah on December 01, 2011, 05:54:07 PM
^Fair enough... :P

Senators, we're now voting on the following amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Quote
Fair Amending Procedure Amendment

Article VII, Section I of the Third Constitution of Atlasia is hereby amended to read:

The Senate, when two-thirds of its chamber shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by the people of Atlasia. In each region, a public vote shall be held regarding the ratification of a proposed amendment. Said vote shall last for exactly one week and shall be administered by the governor of the region or whichever office as the Law may provide. Citizens shall vote "aye," "nay," or "abstain" to a proposed amendment. To be ratified, the proposed amendment shall meet at least one of the following criteria:

I. Receive a simple majority in favor of the ayes (among all "aye" and "nay" votes) in at least four of the five Atlasia regions

II. Receive a three-fifths majority in favor of the ayes (among all "aye" and "nay" votes) in Atlasia at-large.



AYE.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (amendment at vote)
Post by: Napoleon on December 01, 2011, 05:56:07 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (amendment at vote)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 01, 2011, 06:03:24 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (amendment at vote)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on December 01, 2011, 06:13:31 PM
Didn't we try to pass a bill almost exclusively like the amendment being proposed? Except I wanted 2/3 at large? :P

Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (amendment at vote)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 01, 2011, 09:33:41 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (amendment at vote)
Post by: Mopsus on December 01, 2011, 10:39:34 PM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (amendment at vote)
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 01, 2011, 11:33:58 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (amendment at vote)
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on December 02, 2011, 01:43:14 AM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (amendment at vote)
Post by: bgwah on December 03, 2011, 07:47:00 PM
With 2 ayes and 6 nays the amendment has failed.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (debating)
Post by: bgwah on December 04, 2011, 09:59:04 PM
Final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

Quote
Ratification Regionalization Amendment

Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution shall be amended to read the following:

1. The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by three-quarters of the Regions.

2. Regional governments shall choose, in accordance with their lawmaking process, from the following methods of ratification for all Constitutional Amendments:

2a. Referendum in which passage is determined by a simple majority.
2b. Passage through the lawmaking body of the Region.
2c. Signature of the Governor of said Region. Regions may not use this method, unless it is part of a process that includes either 2a or 2b also.

Regional governments may select a combination of the above methods as well.

3. Procedure for ratification of Amendments may only be changed by the lawmaking body of a region once every 60 days.

4. Regions may re-attempt or later rescind ratification of Amendments at their discretion, determined through the lawmaking body of the region, as there shall be no deadline or expiration of Constitutional Amendments passed by the Senate. Regions may not rescind ratification of Amendments that have come into full effect.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: Napoleon on December 04, 2011, 10:01:15 PM
Abstain


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on December 05, 2011, 06:06:55 AM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on December 05, 2011, 10:05:58 AM
Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: Mopsus on December 05, 2011, 11:50:43 AM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on December 05, 2011, 11:58:39 PM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 06, 2011, 01:38:05 AM
Nay


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: CatoMinor on December 06, 2011, 01:50:06 AM
Aye


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: bgwah on December 06, 2011, 03:41:09 PM
I don't really think this amendment is necessary but I'm feeling swingy so I'll let the people decide and vote aye.



The current tally is 5-2-1.

Senators left: Duke and Nathan

With the abstention, this needs one more vote to get two-thirds.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: Napoleon on December 06, 2011, 07:34:57 PM
Change mine to aye.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: bgwah on December 06, 2011, 07:52:30 PM
Well, okay, the current tally is 6-2 then. Though it still needs one more vote since without the abstention, 2/3 is now 7 votes. ;)


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on December 06, 2011, 11:21:02 PM
Aye.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: bgwah on December 06, 2011, 11:35:46 PM
This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their vote.


Title: Re: SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (at final vote)
Post by: bgwah on December 08, 2011, 12:47:12 AM
With 7 ayes and 2 nays, this has passed and is now sent to the regions.