Opinion on Efficient referenda amendment

[cinyc]

I agree with Poirot.  This is a bad amendment, with (perhaps) unintended consequences.

I also think the Senator(s) who propose or oppose amendments should publish a voter guide detailing reasons why voters should vote for or against the proposed Amendment on this board at the time the amendment is up for a vote.  We put a similar provision in place in the Northeast last Assembly session.

Too often, we are asked to vote on technical changes that nobody outside of the Senate understands without any explanation as to why we should make a change.  That's one reason why I almost always vote against unexplained constitutional amendments.  If I can't determine whether the proposed Amendment is necessary, I assume that it isn't.

[cinyc]

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.