Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Franzl]

Full support.

Opposition to this on regional rights grounds is hypocrisy.

[Franzl]

I'm confused now. Why are regionalists opposing giving regions more choice?

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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?

[Franzl]

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?

[Franzl]

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?

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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).

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Franzl]

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?

[Franzl]

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?

[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.

[Franzl]

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"?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Franzl]

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

[Franzl]

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.