Opinion on Efficient referenda amendment

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is an important discussion for us to be having, and one that really reinforces your first point. I can remember more than one instance where an amendment has passed the Senate with fatal flaws that were addressed and lead to its defeat and, if appropriate, a proposal of a corrected version.

     The issue is, the tendency to passively vote with others is a powerful one and we have to be aware that amendments can be ratified while retaining fatal flaws. This is also something that I have seen happen. I think a delay period before the amendment can help deal with this, but it is also important that we promote civil engagement and get members of the voting public debating the pros and cons of these Amendments. We want to do our best to make sure that only solid amendments go into the Constitution.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Not exactly. A region could delay their voting to allow for discussion if they wanted to. Or kill a flawed amendment by not holding the vote at all and force the Senate to try again. That is all gone now, including that critical quality control aspect that was used at least twice that I recall.

Wait, are you defending the previous version because governors could have simply decided not to open a voting booth??? This is not democratic.
And no debates have ever been held about constitutional amendments before.

Actually there were some discussion threads or in the thread I created to inform the public and regions about the vote. With this there is no thread, because there is no one to inform. A memo is sent from the legislative brance to the SoFE and a vote is immediately held.

Since the abolishment of the ilikeverinship in the Midwest, all the Governors are democratically elected. If the region support the amendment, they can vote out the Governor in favor of one who does.

Still, that's ridiculous to defend the previous version because a governor could simply decide not to bring that to a vote. This is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S and I would call out every governor who would try to behave like this. This is the voters who have to decide, not the governors.

Nothing forbides people to open threads discussing about constitutional amendments, so saying this amendment wouldn't allow debates isn't true.

     There is actually a very valid reason for the chief executive of the region to not open a voting booth, that being that the amendment is fatally flawed and would not operate as intended. I did it as Emperor and I encourage every Governor to do the same should they encounter amendments with serious structural defects.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't understand the arguments here. Are people voting against this alteration of the amendment because of the wording of the original amendment from years ago that wasn't the focus of the changes?

Just because you don't like a long-existing part of the amendment doesn't mean you vote against what is being changed that is wholly separate.

Also, it's stupid to force an amendment to continue to pass through the Senate over and over again just because of the current and transient population of a couple of regions.

I voted against this because it is yet another attempt at game "reform" that its proponents never bother to explain why it is necessary and it unjustly usurps on regional rights by moving something that traditionally has been in control of the regions to the federal government.

I also strenuously object to allowing regions to revote on Constitutional Amendments until they pass. That needs to be changed.  Nobody should be able to move regions and vote twice for the same amendment.   That doesn't make sense, and could lead to tyranny by the majority party, as its members move to take over regions to pass their anti-region game "reform" agenda.

     I think it is important to mention that regions don't ever really attempt to re-pass amendments. Allowing them to do so has proven to be a highly pointless "reform" considering that nobody ever does it. The abusability factor only makes things worse. If it actually were ever used, another amendment to get rid of it would come down the pipeline very quickly and justifiably so.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't understand the arguments here. Are people voting against this alteration of the amendment because of the wording of the original amendment from years ago that wasn't the focus of the changes?

Just because you don't like a long-existing part of the amendment doesn't mean you vote against what is being changed that is wholly separate.

Also, it's stupid to force an amendment to continue to pass through the Senate over and over again just because of the current and transient population of a couple of regions.

I voted against this because it is yet another attempt at game "reform" that its proponents never bother to explain why it is necessary and it unjustly usurps on regional rights by moving something that traditionally has been in control of the regions to the federal government.

I also strenuously object to allowing regions to revote on Constitutional Amendments until they pass. That needs to be changed.  Nobody should be able to move regions and vote twice for the same amendment.   That doesn't make sense, and could lead to tyranny by the majority party, as its members move to take over regions to pass their anti-region game "reform" agenda.

     I think it is important to mention that regions don't ever really attempt to re-pass amendments. Allowing them to do so has proven to be a highly pointless "reform" considering that nobody ever does it. The abusability factor only makes things worse. If it actually were ever used, another amendment to get rid of it would come down the pipeline very quickly and justifiably so.

It actually has been used before, and without the repercussions of which you speak. At one point, two regions (possibly a third, but I need to do my homework before I say which) also took advantage of the regional legislative process of adopting federal amendments.

     Well I wasn't talking about the regional legislative process. My region uses it currently, so it would be pretty bad of me to not know that as I'm running for a seat in our legislature.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I find it hilarious to see that the right seems to be much more opposed to a minor change (because seriously this wasn't a big deal or a big move or whateer) than a bill basically raising the minimum wage to $14/hour or a bill basically nationalizing the energy industry. Just one word: HAHAHAHA.

I didn't even bother PMing people this time, because this isn't a big deal for me and that Poirot has raised some good concerns that could improve this version.

     Amendments in general and amendments that affect regions are specially important to me, because of the extreme and effectively irreparable damage that can be done through the amendment process. If y'all want an amendment to nationalize energy, I'll gladly go to the barricades to put it down.