Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

I don't see any point in doing that. I can agree to a limit on how often a partnership can be proposed with another region, but I see no point arbitrarily limiting the amount of partnerships that can be held or subjecting it to routine re-voting.

After reading this thread, and posts like this, I've become convinced that regional rights isn't about regional rights at all. The pro-regional rights crowd, as MaxQue said earlier, is "pro status quo" above all else. This proposal doesn't force anyone to do anything. Regions have complete and total control of everything involved in this system.

To DWTL: "Fluke" elections? That's a silly thing to complain about, there's not a damn thing we can do about that and if you lose an election, you lose an election. Do you have any idea the amount of "flukes" that would be required to reach your nightmare scenario, for heaven's sake? There would have to be a "fluke" in two regions, or three, or the entire flipping country.

This is not a secret plot to abolish regional Senate seats. This is a plan to give regions control over how they elect their representative. You have no argument against it other than that you just don't want it that way, which is starkly anti-region.

To Tmthforu94: It would take widespread opinion and a huge chain of events that never broke to get a situation where all five regions join in a partnership. It's a situation so unlikely that it's stupid to complain about it, and yet again, such a situation would depend on the vote of every single region so how can you POSSIBLY complain?

None of you want to give more power to the regions, you just want to regions to stay how you want them to, and disguise that sentiment as their "protection."

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.

Then your ideas have become no less authoritarian than those who want all seats elected at-large. You want something your way, regional rights be damned.

[Franzl]

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.

And if EVERY SINGLE REGION agreed to that, how would this violate regional rights?

In reality, if at all, a couple of regions might form partnerships.

I don't understand how a regionalist like you could oppose respecting the will of the regions. I'm confused.

[Devilman88]

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.

Why don't you just go ahead and come out and say it. You plan on using this to get rid of regions. I like the idea of partnership, but only if we limit the number of regions that can enter a partnership. Otherwise, I will not support it.

[Franzl]

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.

Why don't you just go ahead and come out and say it. You plan on using this to get rid of regions. I like the idea of partnership, but only if we limit the number of regions that can enter a partnership. Otherwise, I will not support it.

Why do you oppose letting regions themselves decide what partnerships they would like to create? Your opinion is very anti-regionalist.

[DownWithTheLeft]

As usual Devilman makes no sense and is only hurting a real argument.

Looks, lets face it the first move will be the Pacific and Midwest combining so that the JCP can score an easy double victory.   Perhaps then a merger of the Northeast and Mideast to keep the RPP from winning the Mideast seat.  We see what the idea is here, to increase liberal power

[Marokai Backbeat]

Supporters: This is a great plan that allows regions to have control over how they elect their representative with the great potential to increase competition and exciting and in these partnerships it allows...

Opposition: IT'S A CONSPIRACEEEEEEE!!!!111

[Devilman88]

Marokai, I don't want the status quo at all. I believe we need change, but good change. You guys say this will make the regions stronger, but it will not. If we don't limit the number of regions that can enter a partnership then it will make the regions weaker. You can try to hide behind the reform mask on this, but we can see what you are really trying to do. Make all senate seats At-large without getting rid of regions.

[Јas]

I don't understand how a regionalist like you could oppose respecting the will of the regions. I'm confused.

That's because you're presuming he has coherent, logical positions.
If you take the opening assumption that he's a random nonsense idea generator, your confusion will be assuaged.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai, I don't want the status quo at all. I believe we need change, but good change. You guys say this will make the regions stronger, but it will not. If we don't limit the number of regions that can enter a partnership then it will make the regions weaker. You can try to hide behind the reform mask on this, but we can see what you are really trying to do. Make all senate seats At-large without getting rid of regions.

Everything in this Amendment is totally under regional control.

[Franzl]

Marokai, I don't want the status quo at all. I believe we need change, but good change. You guys say this will make the regions stronger, but it will not. If we don't limit the number of regions that can enter a partnership then it will make the regions weaker. You can try to hide behind the reform mask on this, but we can see what you are really trying to do. Make all senate seats At-large without getting rid of regions.

Alright boss, good to hear you oppose regional rights so strongly.

[Хahar 🤔]

As usual Devilman makes no sense and is only hurting a real argument.

Looks, lets face it the first move will be the Pacific and Midwest combining so that the JCP can score an easy double victory.   Perhaps then a merger of the Northeast and Mideast to keep the RPP from winning the Mideast seat.  We see what the idea is here, to increase liberal power

As you may recall, the Pacific and Midwest have had a certain animosity historically. The JCP does not control the Midwest, and even if it did, what would be the difference between two JCP seats and a JCP double-seater constituency? Also, couldn't the Southeast combine with the Mideast to keep the RPP in power?

But, anyway:

Regional Self-Determination Amendment

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

[Franzl]

I don't understand how a regionalist like you could oppose respecting the will of the regions. I'm confused.

That's because you're presuming he has coherent, logical positions.
If you take the opening assumption that he's a random nonsense idea generator, your confusion will be assuaged.

Ah, you're right, that was indeed a very stupid assumption.

[Хahar 🤔]

Regional Self-Determination Amendment

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

Just in case it's not clear, this is an amendment offered.

[afleitch]

What a depressing back and forth this has been.

[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).

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?

A simple majority in only one region should be enough to revert a "partnership". Otherwise, that's not respectful of regional rights.
Are the promoters of this amendment ready to include this ?

What is more, if there is no geographical continuity, that should not be possible. We're not in a virtual world...
Electoral geography means something and gerrymandering also.
Are the promoters of this amendment ready to include this ?

And a limit should be set: the total number of regions minus 1.
Otherwise, that's no more "regional" seats.
Are the promoters of this amendment ready to include this ?

Without these points included, please do not speak about regional rights.

But I must say that, even with these points included,
NOWHERE and NEVER does this sort of partnership has existed.... This is completely weird.

And, of course, there is still one big objection:
- regions are the basic entities of Atlasia
- regional Senators do represent a specific region: Article I, section 1, clause 2 of our Constitution: "No Person shall be a Senator who (...) is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent."
- you can't elect Senators in constituencies that doesn't fit regions, which should be represented by these senators.

Sorry if somebody else has already said this obvious thing before... but this thread begins to be pretty long to read.

So no need to shake the red cloth/rag....

[Хahar 🤔]

Fabien, take a look at the amendment I wrote.

[Franzl]

I thank you kindly for your well thought out response and for the points you made.

Ultimately, I would have to disagree with majority of it. I don't see why we need to make artificial restrictions on the regions as to who they should be allowed to establish partnerships with and with how many other regions this would be allowed.

It is VERY unlikely, but in the event that ALL 5 regions voted to establish a general partnership, I don't see why that would be much of a problem. As said, that is not the intent of this bill, but why not respect the wish of the individual regions?

I simply have become a little upset with people claiming this is a grand anti-region conspiracy. I'm not saying you belong to that group, BBF!

[big bad fab]

I thank you kindly for your well thought out response and for the points you made.

Ultimately, I would have to disagree with majority of it. I don't see why we need to make artificial restrictions on the regions as to who they should be allowed to establish partnerships with and with how many other regions this would be allowed.

The word "partnership" is completely misleading.
This is just another method or another process to elect regional Senators.

So, when one talks about elections that take place in regional constituencies, the constituencies should be coherent. So a partnership between the Pacific and the North East would be a plain gerrymandering
(note that, on this point, I can't be accused to be simply in favour of rightist interests...
BTW, I thank you, Franzl, for considering my objections without any political bias)

And when one talks about regional senators that represent their regions (again, this is Article I of our Constitution), these senators shouldn't come from all the regions at once. Hence a partnership between all the 5 regions would be unconstitutional.
[/quote]

It is VERY unlikely, but in the event that ALL 5 regions voted to establish a general partnership, I don't see why that would be much of a problem. As said, that is not the intent of this bill, but why not respect the wish of the individual regions?

See my answer just above.

I simply have become a little upset with people claiming this is a grand anti-region conspiracy. I'm not saying you belong to that group, BBF!

Well, maybe you're upset, but (apart from the fact that this remains a political game) you must understand that some Atlasians may be rightly worried, because, if the promoters of this amendment talk about respecting the will of the regions,
this proposal answers to absolutely no current regional demand.

Why amending our Constitution without necessity ?
If some senators were elected without any competition and 100% of the votes, well, this proposal may have a sense... But, today, that's not the case, thanks Dave.

I guess the "will" of our citizens in the different regions of Atlasia doesn't exist on this subject. More exactly, why creating weird reforms on issues that are not real issues ?
This "why" may of course disturb many of them.
To the point that a humble Mideasterner and Assemblyman like me, who never intervenes in the national debates, feels the need to object here.

[Franzl]

The one thing I still don't understand is how this could ever really lead to the abolition of regional representation.

It seems very clear that some regions will outright refuse to sacrifice their personal regional representation.

There might not be regional demand, as you say, but what's the real harm in letting regions that mutually decide that they'd like to try this do so?


I mean, in order to pass a constitutiona amendment, you need a majority in 4 out of 5 regions. And even if a region objects, as long as 4 others vote in favor, that amendment is binding on all regions.

I would argue that allowing regions to decide themselves how to elect class A senators doesn't harm any region that doesn't want to participate. If the Southeast has no interest in participating, then they're perfectly free to object to any change to their current representation.

Basically, the standard here is even higher than for a constitutional amendment, as a constitutional amendment abolishing regional seats would only require 4 regions, whereas it couldn't happen under this proposal without the consent of every single region.

I personally don't see any threat to regions here.

[Associate Justice PiT]

As usual Devilman makes no sense and is only hurting a real argument.

Looks, lets face it the first move will be the Pacific and Midwest combining so that the JCP can score an easy double victory.   Perhaps then a merger of the Northeast and Mideast to keep the RPP from winning the Mideast seat.  We see what the idea is here, to increase liberal power

As you may recall, the Pacific and Midwest have had a certain animosity historically. The JCP does not control the Midwest, and even if it did, what would be the difference between two JCP seats and a JCP double-seater constituency? Also, couldn't the Southeast combine with the Mideast to keep the RPP in power?

But, anyway:

Regional Self-Determination Amendment

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

     Combining the Mideast & Southeast would make it hard for the RPP to hold both seats, & would be a violently anti-DA move at that.

     I do like your proposed amendment a lot, though.

[Хahar 🤔]

As usual Devilman makes no sense and is only hurting a real argument.

Looks, lets face it the first move will be the Pacific and Midwest combining so that the JCP can score an easy double victory.   Perhaps then a merger of the Northeast and Mideast to keep the RPP from winning the Mideast seat.  We see what the idea is here, to increase liberal power

As you may recall, the Pacific and Midwest have had a certain animosity historically. The JCP does not control the Midwest, and even if it did, what would be the difference between two JCP seats and a JCP double-seater constituency? Also, couldn't the Southeast combine with the Mideast to keep the RPP in power?

But, anyway:

Regional Self-Determination Amendment

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

     Combining the Mideast & Southeast would make it hard for the RPP to hold both seats, & would be a violently anti-DA move at that.

     I do like your proposed amendment a lot, though.

Of course it would; combining the Mideast and Southeast for electoral purpose makes as much sense as Fluffy's prophecies do.

Glad to see you like it.

[Fritz]

Since no other Senator has done so, I present Xahar's amendment as an amendment.

[MaxQue]

If some senators were elected without any competition and 100% of the votes, well, this proposal may have a sense... But, today, that's not the case, thanks Dave.

The Pacific senator is correcting you by saying you than he was elected with 100% of votes without any competition. Well, I had a opponent, but he failed to came voting.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If some senators were elected without any competition and 100% of the votes, well, this proposal may have a sense... But, today, that's not the case, thanks Dave.

The Pacific senator is correcting you by saying you than he was elected with 100% of votes without any competition. Well, I had a opponent, but he failed to came voting.

Yeah, perhaps BBF might like to do his research before speaking.

Since no other Senator has done so, I present Xahar's amendment as an amendment.

Can someone explain to me what it does and why it's been introduced? It seems purposely vague.

[Хahar 🤔]

It is vague. It allows regions to do to their seats as they see fit.