Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[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).

[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....

[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.

[big bad fab]

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.

Perhaps the respectable President Pro Tempore might like to read each word of my sentence before posting.
"some senators" / "one senator": see the difference ?


BTW, the Pacific may really be the point of this proposal...