Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Alexander Hamilton]

     I strongly support this amendment. I suppose I should introduce legislation in my region soon stating that we will not give up our exclusive right to representation by our Senator unless 70%+ vote in the affirmative, so as to nullify the threat of eliminating Regional Senate seats.

I recall Dan Adams ranting about wanting FPTP. Maybe you can go ahead and do that, too.

[Χahar]

Perhaps legislation could be introduced in the Southeast requiring a two-thirds majority for any change.

[Marokai]

Perhaps legislation could be introduced in the Southeast requiring a two-thirds majority for any change.

Yes, it's important for us all to remember that the regions would set all the standards, literally everything, involved in their elections.

A final vote will be opened soon.

[afleitch]

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.

Right; a quick look at this again before bed.

Given that this is a constitutional amendment this would, If I am reading this correctly allow Regions to decide on the election system but also on qualifications for election?

So we could have some posters eligable for one class of Senate seat but not another? As some Senate seats could be elected under one system and some under another, does this mean that a region could abolish democratic elections completely, or do so by default by tightening the qualifications for holding office?

Madness. The language needs to be tightened up if this is the direction the Senate wants to go.

[Χahar]

The reason is that Senators are currently required to reside in the region they represent. Obviously, this would be an issue if partnerships were created.

I don't think anyone would object to a clause mandating that Senators be elected democratically.

[afleitch]

I don't think anyone would object to a clause mandating that Senators be elected democratically.

Likewise with 'qualifications' and what we mean by qualifying criteria as that could be interpreted to mean absolutely anything.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm not sure where the current text of the bill is but could someone introduce the amendment requiring a 75% approval and 50% turnout based on the average of the last two reguarly scheduled elections

[Senator MaxQue]

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.

The current text is that, DWTL.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Thank you Mr. Senator, in that I ask a senator introduce this amendment

2. In order for any change to occur to method of selection, the vote must meet the following conditions:
A. 75% of voters must vote in the affirmative
B. 50% of the total number of voters in the region in the last two regularly scheduled elections decided in half must vote

[I left.]

75% is too high for me....I might be willing to agree to 60%.

[DownWithTheLeft]

75% is too high for me....I might be willing to agree to 60%.

66%/50% compromise would work for me.  This should be easy, I don't see why at least the constituional amendment standard should not be held.

I'm really confused about this amendment now with the senate having only 8 senators

[I left.]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

[DownWithTheLeft]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

[Alexander Hamilton]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

My God, you are a f-cking idiot! I swear, if anyone actually votes for you...

[I left.]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

The standards I am proposing are STRICTER than for constitutional amendments!

[DownWithTheLeft]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

The standards I am proposing are STRICTER than for constitutional amendments!

Only if you require 4/5ths of regions to approve the change

[I left.]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

The standards I am proposing are STRICTER than for constitutional amendments!

Only if you require 4/5ths of regions to approve the change

Certainly. We require ALL involved regions to approve. 100%>80%

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yet it is only two regions.  The constitutional amendment process requires that a popular vote of senators be held that reaches 2/3 AND 4/5 of regions pass it.  Here you are only asking the voters of two regions to vote in a simple majority.  I may actually be willing to come down to the 60% number, but 50% of the average of the number of voters in the last two elections is a huge sticking point.

[I left.]

Why is it the Southeast's concern if the Midwest and Mideast want to arrange a partnership?

They're not being forced to do anything.

100% of those affected must approve, I think that's a pretty fair standard

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why is it the Southeast's concern if the Midwest and Mideast want to arrange a partnership?

They're not being forced to do anything.

100% of those affected must approve, I think that's a pretty fair standard

Its not 100% of those affected.  The 50% is a stick point to me because I am worried about the possbility of a special election being called (as many regions can do) and then something like a 3-2 vote ending a regional senate seat.  Its 50% of the average number of voters in the last two elections.  If the turnout is more than 50% less than the last election, that means the will of the people is not sufficently heard.

[Χahar]

Let regions decide. No need to pander to Fluffy.

[I left.]

Well if the turnout requirement were the only way to pass this, then I wouldn't stand in its way, but I'd prefer to not restrict regional rights more than necessary.

We'll see what happens.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Let regions decide. No need to pander to Fluffy.

I am one of the few in my party willing to even discuss amendments to this, if you can't win over me good luck winning over enough people to pass this in 4/5 regions.  The Dirty South is gone and the Mideast, Midwest, and Northeast are far from sure things

[DownWithTheLeft]

Well if the turnout requirement were the only way to pass this, then I wouldn't stand in its way, but I'd prefer to not restrict regional rights more than necessary.

We'll see what happens.

Would you mind introducing my proposal with the number changed from 75 to 60 as an amendment?

[I left.]

Well if the turnout requirement were the only way to pass this, then I wouldn't stand in its way, but I'd prefer to not restrict regional rights more than necessary.

We'll see what happens.

Would you mind introducing my proposal with the number changed from 75 to 60 as an amendment?

Oh yeah, that's no problem. It's important for the Senate to decide what's best.