Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[MaxQue]

A Senate "Partnership"? While I'm interested in the idea, this proposal seems like a more moderate proposal in the discussions of abolishing Regional Senate Seats.

It's voluntary.

I read. It just seems like that is a possibility if that is passed.

That just sounds conspiratorial to me. That has nothing to do with this proposal.

Let's just stick to this topic this time.

A possible prognosis isn't relevant to the proposal? It was merely a question. I'm not saying that is your aim, I'm just analyzing a possible result.

     Pointing out the possible results of passing this amendment makes you a conspiracy theorist, apparently.

That isn't a possible result.

     Because there is a section that specifically forbids all five regions from entering into a partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

[MaxQue]

A Senate "Partnership"? While I'm interested in the idea, this proposal seems like a more moderate proposal in the discussions of abolishing Regional Senate Seats.

It's voluntary.

I read. It just seems like that is a possibility if that is passed.

That just sounds conspiratorial to me. That has nothing to do with this proposal.

Let's just stick to this topic this time.

A possible prognosis isn't relevant to the proposal? It was merely a question. I'm not saying that is your aim, I'm just analyzing a possible result.

     Pointing out the possible results of passing this amendment makes you a conspiracy theorist, apparently.

That isn't a possible result.

     Because there is a section that specifically forbids all five regions from entering into a partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

     I was trying to point out that it could be co-opted by anti-regionalists. Then there's taking into account Senator Fritz's observation that probably no regions will want to enact partnerships (perhaps unless guided to do so for the purpose of abolishing regional Senate seats).

Regional Senate seats are not in danger... It couldn't pass the Senate. The "amendment amendment" that would have made ratification easier failed in three key regions. Are you dense enough to think I would endanger regional seats without being provoked?

     Last time I checked, all five regions forming a partnership together would effectively do the same without a Senate vote.

Yes, but I have a difficulty imagining a region who voted against the abolition of regional Senate seats voting for a partnership including the five regions. What is the problem with people in regions deciding?

[MaxQue]

A Senate "Partnership"? While I'm interested in the idea, this proposal seems like a more moderate proposal in the discussions of abolishing Regional Senate Seats.

It's voluntary.

I read. It just seems like that is a possibility if that is passed.

That just sounds conspiratorial to me. That has nothing to do with this proposal.

Let's just stick to this topic this time.

A possible prognosis isn't relevant to the proposal? It was merely a question. I'm not saying that is your aim, I'm just analyzing a possible result.

     Pointing out the possible results of passing this amendment makes you a conspiracy theorist, apparently.

That isn't a possible result.

     Because there is a section that specifically forbids all five regions from entering into a partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

     I was trying to point out that it could be co-opted by anti-regionalists. Then there's taking into account Senator Fritz's observation that probably no regions will want to enact partnerships (perhaps unless guided to do so for the purpose of abolishing regional Senate seats).

Regional Senate seats are not in danger... It couldn't pass the Senate. The "amendment amendment" that would have made ratification easier failed in three key regions. Are you dense enough to think I would endanger regional seats without being provoked?

     Last time I checked, all five regions forming a partnership together would effectively do the same without a Senate vote.

Under my suggestion, that would require over 60% of voters in each region to approve that. And technically, they would still be regional Senate seats. The regions simply choose a different way of electing their own representation. What is so hard to understand about that? And you know what? If 60% of people in every region want something, it's hard to make a case against it.

     They would effectively be at-large, since they'd be elected in basically the same way as the Class B seats. Also, if public opinion is that strongly in favor of making the switch across the board, passing an amendment through the Senate should be possible without much trouble.

You are only focusing on one part of the bill. This bill is giving the control of regional Senate seats elections to regions. Regions are gaining a power, yet, you are opposing it.

You must make a choice here. Either you support regions and support this, either you are against regions and oppose this. I think than you are not pro-region, you are pro status quo.

[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.

[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.

[MaxQue]

     Regions should be able to unilaterally change the requirements for their own vote if they so wish.

Well, we are all agreeing to that, except DWTL, who is imagining a plot to destroy regions.

[MaxQue]

One question from the gallery:

Does the proposal as currently written allow a single region to vote to terminate a voting partnership they previously entered?

The current proposal is written as regions decide all. So, yes, a region can leave unilaterally a hypothetical partnership.

[MaxQue]

This has been debated to death. I don't think anything else meaningful will be added.

Time for a vote?

How many Senators there is now?

[MaxQue]

Aye

[MaxQue]

Nay for the record.

This was one of the most...'odd' constitutional bills put before the Senate. The text of the bill has changed a few times and none has addressed what is to be gained by having 5 regional seats not only elected differently (which can be argued) but also with a difference in qualification

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

There is nothing to stop regions setting a ludicrously high, discriminatory or undemocratic bar on qualification. I am not assuming that any regions will...but theres nothing to stop them doing so.

Along this line, the Pacific or Southeast could easily have the votes to set a party requirement for their regional senators.

I'll vote such a thing in Pacific and Southeast doesn't have the votes to do it.