Regional Senate Partnership Amendment [failed to pass]

[tmthforu94]

Nay

Fake regionalist. It's becoming more and more clear regional rights is a brand name, and not a genuine ideology, as you only seem to support the "rights" of the regions that you like.

Marokai, you should know this by now: Regionalists only support regional rights when they want to. It simply depends on the issue. If it's an issue they don't want, they'll fall back on saying it should be "up to the regions". I can't think why regionalists don't support this bill, which would give regions even more power.

[President Mitt]

It failed? Damn...

[Purple State]

Nay

Fake regionalist. It's becoming more and more clear regional rights is a brand name, and not a genuine ideology, as you only seem to support the "rights" of the regions that you like.

Marokai, you should know this by now: Regionalists only support regional rights when they want to. It simply depends on the issue. If it's an issue they don't want, they'll fall back on saying it should be "up to the regions". I can't think why regionalists don't support this bill, which would give regions even more power.

To be fair, this won't give regions more "power" in the lateral sense that they can exert any additional influence on any part of the process. This is more of a horizontal power, where you shift around what a region can do without adding any new powers.

That being said, I don't think there needs to be a regionalist argument against this amendment. Why create additional unnecessary complexity in an already multi-faceted game?

[tmthforu94]

Nay

Fake regionalist. It's becoming more and more clear regional rights is a brand name, and not a genuine ideology, as you only seem to support the "rights" of the regions that you like.

Marokai, you should know this by now: Regionalists only support regional rights when they want to. It simply depends on the issue. If it's an issue they don't want, they'll fall back on saying it should be "up to the regions". I can't think why regionalists don't support this bill, which would give regions even more power.

To be fair, this won't give regions more "power" in the lateral sense that they can exert any additional influence on any part of the process. This is more of a horizontal power, where you shift around what a region can do without adding any new powers.

That being said, I don't think there needs to be a regionalist argument against this amendment. Why create additional unnecessary complexity in an already multi-faceted game?

Currently, it is the opinion of many that regional senate elections are boring. This would hopefully make them more interesting and exciting.

[Vepres]

Nay

Fake regionalist. It's becoming more and more clear regional rights is a brand name, and not a genuine ideology, as you only seem to support the "rights" of the regions that you like.

Regionalists don't support arbitrary increases in regional power.

[Purple State]

Nay

Fake regionalist. It's becoming more and more clear regional rights is a brand name, and not a genuine ideology, as you only seem to support the "rights" of the regions that you like.

Marokai, you should know this by now: Regionalists only support regional rights when they want to. It simply depends on the issue. If it's an issue they don't want, they'll fall back on saying it should be "up to the regions". I can't think why regionalists don't support this bill, which would give regions even more power.

To be fair, this won't give regions more "power" in the lateral sense that they can exert any additional influence on any part of the process. This is more of a horizontal power, where you shift around what a region can do without adding any new powers.

That being said, I don't think there needs to be a regionalist argument against this amendment. Why create additional unnecessary complexity in an already multi-faceted game?

Currently, it is the opinion of many that regional senate elections are boring. This would hopefully make them more interesting and exciting.

I don't see how this would happen. Currently, a boring election is one in which a person runs uncontested. Whether it is one person running for one seat or two people running for two seats, it is just as boring.

The way to get more exciting elections is to foster increased activity. We have seen a slew of more competitive elections from the regions, both for Senate and for Governor, with the advent of the regional legislatures. Encouraging the growth and spread of assemblies seems a much more effective way of spurring the competition we all want.

[CatoMinor]

Nay

Fake regionalist. It's becoming more and more clear regional rights is a brand name, and not a genuine ideology, as you only seem to support the "rights" of the regions that you like.

Marokai, you should know this by now: Regionalists only support regional rights when they want to. It simply depends on the issue. If it's an issue they don't want, they'll fall back on saying it should be "up to the regions". I can't think why regionalists don't support this bill, which would give regions even more power.

But it would be the power to delude their power which would seem rather counter productive to a regionalist. To a regionalist an ideal Senate would be all regional. Under this it would have created the opportunity, not that the regions would necessarily take it,  but still the opportunity for an all at-large Senate.

And as for the idea of making elections more exciting, I'll reiterate what has already been said, don't try and fix what isn't broken.

[Хahar 🤔]

And as for the idea of making elections more exciting, I'll reiterate what has already been said, don't try and fix what isn't broken.

You're the only one who is trying that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well most of my points have been made, but I could play devils advocate to respond to my friend, Marokai, that this would be a significant catalyst for Strategic Registration (Remember this?), You could dump a bunch of people into a region, vote to form a partnership, and then leave them there and you can control two Regional Senate seats. Even with the new laws that have succeeded in ending this problem, since you would only have to move them one, this could re-ignite that problem. One could see the Mideast DAers, the Northeast Pops or the Pacific JCPers doing this to the either the Midwest or the Southeast. But of course such a thing would be very conspiratorial and irrational...or is it?

[Bacon King]

This amendment has enough votes to fail; Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[tmthforu94]

This amendment has enough votes to fail; Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

But their are only 4 votes against it, unless my math is mistaken.

[Mint]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This amendment has enough votes to fail; Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

But their are only 4 votes against it, unless my math is mistaken.

Its a consitutional amendment and requires 2/3 = 66.67% of senate. Since the 6.67% has to vote yes it requires 7 votes not 6.

[tmthforu94]

This amendment has enough votes to fail; Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

But their are only 4 votes against it, unless my math is mistaken.

Its a consitutional amendment and requires 2/3 = 66.67% of senate. Since the 6.67% has to vote yes it requires 7 votes not 6.

Ah, that make sense. Well shoot...

[Badger]

Game reform for the sake of game reform, while interesting, may inevitably lead to more harm than good. This seems like it will be a) underutilized and b) a source of confusion.

Very much agreed. This is something I've said in the past; ie, we do not need to break what works well for the sake of reform. I think most of the regional elections were close contests, and because of that, the argument that they are all uninteresting is simply grasping for straws. Sure, the Southeast and Pacific were not contests, but you can't expect 100% of the elections to be nail biters.

I tend to agree.

NAY, btw.

[Bacon King]

This has failed.

[MasterJedi]

Great job in rejecting this guys!