Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 02:03:04 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Print
Author Topic: Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]  (Read 10749 times)
Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38849
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: December 02, 2009, 03:25:39 am »
Ignore

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

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16725
United States


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: December 02, 2009, 03:26:10 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38849
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: December 02, 2009, 03:27:31 am »
Ignore

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

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16725
United States


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: December 02, 2009, 03:29:01 am »
Ignore

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

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

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.
Logged

MaxQue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8737
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: December 02, 2009, 03:29:23 am »
Ignore

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

It's voluntary.

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.

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. Tongue

That isn't a possible result.

     Because there is a section that specifically forbids all five regions from entering into a 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.

     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?

     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.

     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.

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).

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.

     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.

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.
Logged
IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22466
United States


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: December 02, 2009, 04:27:32 am »
Ignore

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

     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.

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.

     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.

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

It's voluntary.

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.

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. Tongue

That isn't a possible result.

     Because there is a section that specifically forbids all five regions from entering into a 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.

     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?

     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.

     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.

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).

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.

     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.

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.

     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.
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21850


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #56 on: December 02, 2009, 05:57:32 am »
Ignore

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 Smiley 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 Cheesy It is a system which is fair to the principles of representation based on regions, based on population and based on proportionality.
Logged

Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16725
United States


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: December 02, 2009, 06:08:46 am »
Ignore

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 Smiley 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 Cheesy 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?
Logged

afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21850


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #58 on: December 02, 2009, 06:37:00 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31365
South Africa



View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: December 02, 2009, 07:37:12 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

RG Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5476
United States


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2009, 07:57:28 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22037
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: December 02, 2009, 08:00:39 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21850


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2009, 08:19:40 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18334
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2009, 09:12:22 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged


"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
-Jackie Robinson
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22037
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2009, 09:14:20 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged
Hans-im-Glück
Franken
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8302
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -5.94, S: -3.30

View Profile
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2009, 10:17:39 am »
Ignore

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
Logged

DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18877
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #66 on: December 02, 2009, 11:48:23 am »
Ignore

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
Logged

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22037
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: December 02, 2009, 11:58:42 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18877
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #68 on: December 02, 2009, 12:00:32 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22037
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: December 02, 2009, 12:02:53 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9331
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: December 02, 2009, 12:04:21 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

people suck
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18877
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #71 on: December 02, 2009, 12:06:44 pm »
Ignore

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

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22037
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: December 02, 2009, 12:09:20 pm »
Ignore

Don't you get it? You are opposing regional rights here. If the Mideast and Northeast both AGREE, who are you to prohibit that?
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.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18877
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

View Profile
« Reply #73 on: December 02, 2009, 12:10:44 pm »
Ignore

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
Logged

Gov. Christopher J. Christie
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22037
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: December 02, 2009, 12:12:52 pm »
Ignore

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).
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines