DWTL December HQ

[Californian Tony]

Why do you hate regions?

I pray you to answer.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why do you hate regions?

I pray you to answer.

I refuse to vindicate such a dumb and inaccurate question with an answer

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Why do you hate regions?

I pray you to answer.

I refuse to vindicate such a dumb and inaccurate question with an answer I refuse to answer any political questions. Just elect me, you dumb librul bastards, or I'll hate you more!

Fixed

[DownWithTheLeft]

If a legitimate question was asked, I would be more than happy to answer it

[Χahar]

Why shouldn't regions be allowed to decide how to choose their regional Senators?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why shouldn't regions be allowed to decide how to choose their regional Senators?

The regions should be allowed to determine the method in which their senators be elected, a voting method.  No region should be denied a senator which is what the bill is aimed to do.

[Californian Tony]

Why shouldn't regions be allowed to decide how to choose their regional Senators?

The regions should be allowed to determine the method in which their senators be elected, a voting method.  No region should be denied a senator which is what the bill is aimed to do.

The bill does not deny the regions a senator, it gives them the possibility to renounce to it. That's what people call a "regional right".

[HappyWarrior]

Why shouldn't regions be allowed to decide how to choose their regional Senators?

The regions should be allowed to determine the method in which their senators be elected, a voting method.  No region should be denied a senator which is what the bill is aimed to do.

It allows them to choose their region's actions....

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why shouldn't regions be allowed to decide how to choose their regional Senators?

The regions should be allowed to determine the method in which their senators be elected, a voting method.  No region should be denied a senator which is what the bill is aimed to do.

It allows them to choose their region's actions....

If a region votes something like 4-3 to combine their seat, that is absurd.  If the standard were much higher like 75% of both regions must agree with a minimum turnout of 50% my opinion might change

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why shouldn't regions be allowed to decide how to choose their regional Senators?

The regions should be allowed to determine the method in which their senators be elected, a voting method.  No region should be denied a senator which is what the bill is aimed to do.

It allows them to choose their region's actions....

If a region votes something like 4-3 to combine their seat, that is absurd.  If the standard were much higher like 75% of both regions must agree with a minimum turnout of 50% my opinion might change

The same region could vote 4-3 to elect a region hating Senator.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The analogy is terrible at best

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

If a legitimate question was asked, I would be more than happy to answer it

I suggest that you may post a summary of your agenda

[DownWithTheLeft]

If a legitimate question was asked, I would be more than happy to answer it

I suggest that you may post a summary of your agenda

I have, and I think the majority of Atlasians are familiar with everything I stand for.  Plus, can you just read any of my senate posts if you want more clarification

[Fritz]

So, the voters should have to do a little research to figure out your platform?

Whatever, it's your campaign.

[DownWithTheLeft]

So, the voters should have to do a little research to figure out your platform?

I posted it a page ago

I don't think I should have to post it on every page of my thread

[Californian Tony]

Why shouldn't regions be allowed to decide how to choose their regional Senators?

The regions should be allowed to determine the method in which their senators be elected, a voting method.  No region should be denied a senator which is what the bill is aimed to do.

It allows them to choose their region's actions....

If a region votes something like 4-3 to combine their seat, that is absurd.  If the standard were much higher like 75% of both regions must agree with a minimum turnout of 50% my opinion might change

Clarify your position. So you aren't opposed to Senate partnerships in their principle ?

And 75% is absurd. Even the NE uses 67% for constitutional Amendments, and its Amending procedure is excessively tough.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes, I am entirely opposed to the idea of regional senate partnerships as they are just the new and creative way to eliminate regional senate seats.  With a few strategically placed votes and simple majorities, you can combine all five regions together and effectively have another set of at-large elections.

If there was a 75% pass, 50% turnout clause I would be more inclined to support it.  Remember, 3/4 of states need to ratify amendments so I think 3/4 of voters should have to say they want their region combined.

[Californian Tony]

Yes, I am entirely opposed to the idea of regional senate partnerships as they are just the new and creative way to eliminate regional senate seats.  With a few strategically placed votes and simple majorities, you can combine all five regions together and effectively have another set of at-large elections.

What's bad in it, if this is the free will of the people of said regions ? How can you focus your campaign on "regional rights" while denying them the right to chose between regional and at-large systems ?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes, I am entirely opposed to the idea of regional senate partnerships as they are just the new and creative way to eliminate regional senate seats.  With a few strategically placed votes and simple majorities, you can combine all five regions together and effectively have another set of at-large elections.

What's bad in it, if this is the free will of the people of said regions ? How can you focus your campaign on "regional rights" while denying them the right to chose between regional and at-large systems ?

There is nothing pro-region about thinking that regions can eliminate their seats with a simple majority vote.  I would be fine with the proposal if it assured that this was the overwhelming will of the overwhelming majority of the people.  I am actually much more concerned about the 50% turnout than the 75%, I would be willing to go 60% turnout 2/3 majority as well

[Californian Tony]

Yes, I am entirely opposed to the idea of regional senate partnerships as they are just the new and creative way to eliminate regional senate seats.  With a few strategically placed votes and simple majorities, you can combine all five regions together and effectively have another set of at-large elections.

What's bad in it, if this is the free will of the people of said regions ? How can you focus your campaign on "regional rights" while denying them the right to chose between regional and at-large systems ?

There is nothing pro-region about thinking that regions can eliminate their seats with a simple majority vote.  I would be fine with the proposal if it assured that this was the overwhelming will of the overwhelming majority of the people.  I am actually much more concerned about the 50% turnout than the 75%, I would be willing to go 60% turnout 2/3 majority as well

Those concerns are understandable. But please say once for all that you can't in intellectual honesty oppose these bill if previously mentioned concerns are guaranteed.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If we ge the 75%/50% I would more than likely support it

[Californian Tony]

If we ge the 75%/50% I would more than likely support it

67% is more reasonable. If people support this stuff 2-1, the region's will is unequivocally expressed.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If we ge the 75%/50% I would more than likely support it

67% is more reasonable. If people support this stuff 2-1, the region's will is unequivocally expressed.

Then raise the turnout percentage.  What about something like 75% of the average of the number of voters in the last two regularly schedule senate elections?

[Californian Tony]

If we ge the 75%/50% I would more than likely support it

67% is more reasonable. If people support this stuff 2-1, the region's will is unequivocally expressed.

Then raise the turnout percentage.  What about something like 75% of the average of the number of voters in the last two regularly schedule senate elections?

Quite complicated, and even more draconian.
In fact, the will of 50% of all citizens is a sufficient expression of popular will. That means in any case you could never find more people who oppose than people who favor it.

[Vepres]

If we ge the 75%/50% I would more than likely support it

67% is more reasonable. If people support this stuff 2-1, the region's will is unequivocally expressed.

Then raise the turnout percentage.  What about something like 75% of the average of the number of voters in the last two regularly schedule senate elections?

Quite complicated, and even more draconian.
In fact, the will of 50% of all citizens is a sufficient expression of popular will. That means in any case you could never find more people who oppose than people who favor it.

Of course, a simple majority for something so important sets up the potential for a slim majority to exercise power over a large minority.