Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[DownWithTheLeft]

No one should be deprived of their regional representation because a vote occured that says they no longer have it.  This is about standing up for every citizen and making sure there voice is heard.

[I left.]

No one should be deprived of their regional representation because a vote occured that says they no longer have it.  This is about standing up for every citizen and making sure there voice is heard.

And how exactly is their voice not heard if their respective region enters a partnership? It would only be enacted through majority votes in both regions.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No one should be deprived of their regional representation because a vote occured that says they no longer have it.  This is about standing up for every citizen and making sure there voice is heard.

And how exactly is their voice not heard if their respective region enters a partnership? It would only be enacted through majority votes in both regions.

Do you know how easy it is to get a vote in a low turnout off-key election like that?  Xahar's fluke win in the Dirty South being the perfect example. 

[I left.]

No one should be deprived of their regional representation because a vote occured that says they no longer have it.  This is about standing up for every citizen and making sure there voice is heard.

And how exactly is their voice not heard if their respective region enters a partnership? It would only be enacted through majority votes in both regions.

Do you know how easy it is to get a vote in a low turnout off-key election like that?  Xahar's fluke win in the Dirty South being the perfect example. 

What's your point? I don't see a problem with that. Anybody is able to vote that wishes to.

[DownWithTheLeft]

So you basically just acknowleged that with a simple vote you could eliminate regional senate seats, thank you for stating my reasons to be opposed to this

[I left.]

So you basically just acknowleged that with a simple vote you could eliminate regional senate seats, thank you for stating my reasons to be opposed to this

LOL, no.

I repeat, no region is forced to enter into such a partnership. No region is forced to give up it's regional seat.

I get the feeling you're supporting regional senate seats for the sake of regional senate seats rather than actually supporting regional rights.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Can a region or can it not vote to remove its regional representation?  I again cite Xahar's election that flukes can happen in elections that do not reflect the view of the people

[Alexander Hamilton]

Can a region or can it not vote to remove its regional representation?  I again cite Xahar's election that flukes can happen in elections that do not reflect the view of the people

If the region chooses it, then it IS regional representation. Are you really that dumb?

[I left.]

Can a region or can it not vote to remove its regional representation?  I again cite Xahar's election that flukes can happen in elections that do not reflect the view of the people

You clearly demonstrate that you couldn't give a s**t about regional rights.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Can a region or can it not vote to remove its regional representation?  I again cite Xahar's election that flukes can happen in elections that do not reflect the view of the people

You clearly demonstrate that you couldn't give a s**t about regional rights.

I do care about regional rights, my senate record speaks for itself.  However, I do not want the possiblity of a fluke election destroying regional seats.  There should be 0 avenues to eliminate regional representation

[big bad fab]

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?

Of course not. Not voting this amendment wouldn't prohibit anything, as the possibility does not exist currently.

The problem is, when you want to come back, you've got only one referendum with, of course, a greater chance to have an anti-regional majority...
So, when you've chosen to go one way, you can't really come back.

It makes me think about Denmark's and Ireland's referendums in the EU.
Provided they result in a "yes", all is good and you don't ask again: it's for eternity, sort of. But if it's a "no", you vote again...

This is not about regional rights, here. This is about opening a possibility for anti-regional rights Atlasians in the regions to lower regional power and/or representation on the federal level.

In the end, you may promote a 5-region partnership, for example... using a low turnout, once, among regional-rights defenders.

(FTR, I've voted in favour of the Amendment on Amendements. So I'm not "just another RPPer". Check my record and the Mideast Assembly. And check my icy exchanges with DWTL... I recall these points for those not used to my very, very scarce posts at the national level).

[I left.]

I do care about regional rights, my senate record speaks for itself.  However, I do not want the possiblity of a fluke election destroying regional seats.  There should be 0 avenues to eliminate regional representation

Got it. Regions shouldn't be free to decide for themselves.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I do care about regional rights, my senate record speaks for itself.  However, I do not want the possiblity of a fluke election destroying regional seats.  There should be 0 avenues to eliminate regional representation

Got it. Regions shouldn't be free to decide for themselves.

If you hold a vote enough times, eventually it will pass by a fluke. 

[I left.]

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?

Of course not. Not voting this amendment wouldn't prohibit anything, as the possibility does not exist currently.

The problem is, when you want to come back, you've got only one referendum with, of course, a greater chance to have an anti-regional majority...
So, when you've chosen to go one way, you can't really come back.

It makes me think about Denmark's and Ireland's referendums in the EU.
Provided they result in a "yes", all is good and you don't ask again: it's for eternity, sort of. But if it's a "no", you vote again...

This is not about regional rights, here. This is about opening a possibility for anti-regional rights Atlasians in the regions to lower regional power and/or representation on the federal level.

In the end, you may promote a 5-region partnership, for example... using a low turnout, once, among regional-rights defenders.

(FTR, I've voted in favour of the Amendment on Amendements. So I'm not "just another RPPer". Check my record and the Mideast Assembly. And check my icy exchanges with DWTL... I recall these points for those not used to my very, very scarce posts at the national level).

You raise a valid point. I would certainly be willing to amend this to, a.) allow partnerships to be broken should a majority make that decision, b.) to only allow the proposition to be made, let's say, once every 4 months or so.

Would that make you feel more comfortable with this?

[Alexander Hamilton]

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?

Of course not. Not voting this amendment wouldn't prohibit anything, as the possibility does not exist currently.

The problem is, when you want to come back, you've got only one referendum with, of course, a greater chance to have an anti-regional majority...
So, when you've chosen to go one way, you can't really come back.

It makes me think about Denmark's and Ireland's referendums in the EU.
Provided they result in a "yes", all is good and you don't ask again: it's for eternity, sort of. But if it's a "no", you vote again...

This is not about regional rights, here. This is about opening a possibility for anti-regional rights Atlasians in the regions to lower regional power and/or representation on the federal level.

In the end, you may promote a 5-region partnership, for example... using a low turnout, once, among regional-rights defenders.

(FTR, I've voted in favour of the Amendment on Amendements. So I'm not "just another RPPer". Check my record and the Mideast Assembly. And check my icy exchanges with DWTL... I recall these points for those not used to my very, very scarce posts at the national level).

These partnerships aren't permanent. If Marokai would like to see myself or Xahar write up a few more amendments I would be glad to. I've already suggested raising the vote needed to enter a partnership and we obviously need restrictions on unassociated partnerships (MW+ME and MW+NE without ME+NE, for example) and a method of withdrawing from these partnerships, which I suggested should be a simple majority vote. I don't see this proposition as at all harmful to regional representation. All it does is expand regional representation and regional rights.

[Χahar]

The problem is, when you want to come back, you've got only one referendum with, of course, a greater chance to have an anti-regional majority...
So, when you've chosen to go one way, you can't really come back.

It makes me think about Denmark's and Ireland's referendums in the EU.
Provided they result in a "yes", all is good and you don't ask again: it's for eternity, sort of. But if it's a "no", you vote again...

This is not the intent. It is an oversight that no method has been given to withdraw.

[Devilman88]

I like the core idea of this, IMO this give more power to the people to elect their regional Senator how they want.

[Jayhawker]

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?

I also think this bill is also an effort to create all at-large seats.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Alright for anyone who wasn't sold this bill has ulterior motives, Xahar and Hamilton had a hand in writing it

[I left.]

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?

I also think this bill is also an effort to create all at-large seats.

You don't believe regions should be able to decide themselves what they want?

[Devilman88]

Maybe, if it had something in that that limits the number of regions entering a partnership, them more people might support it. Maybe limiting the number to three or even two. Also something that said a region can only be in one partnership at a time. Also, maybe having the partnership limited to 6 month and at the end of that 6 months it goes vote again to see if the partnership stand or fails.

[Jayhawker]

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?

I also think this bill is also an effort to create all at-large seats.

You don't believe regions should be able to decide themselves what they want?

I don't like the motives of this amendment, and I think each region should elect one Senator, plain and simple.

[I left.]

No, I won't accept any limitations on how many regions can enter partnerships with each other. The whole purpose of this is to give regions as much power as possible to elect their senators.

[I left.]

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?

I also think this bill is also an effort to create all at-large seats.

You don't believe regions should be able to decide themselves what they want?

I don't like the motives of this amendment, and I think each region should elect one Senator, plain and simple.

So, for the record, you support overruling the will of the regions in order to maintain "one senator, one region"?

[Jayhawker]

No, I won't accept any limitations on how many regions can enter partnerships with each other. The whole purpose of this is to give regions as much power as possible to elect their senators.

No, the purpose is a few people trying to basically create 10 at-large seats, hoping that all the regions band together to elect 5 "regional" Senators.