SENATE BILL: Fair Amending Procedure Amendment (Passed-Not Finalized)

[Ban my account ffs!]

Sponsor:  Senator Antonio

Fair Amending Procedure Amendment

Article VII, Section I of the Third Constitution of Atlasia is hereby amended to read:

The Senate, when two-thirds of its chamber shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by the people of Atlasia. In each region, a public vote shall be held regarding the ratification of a proposed amendment. Said vote shall last for exactly one week and shall be administered by the governor of the region or whichever office as the Law may provide. Citizens shall vote "aye," "nay," or "abstain" to a proposed amendment. To be ratified, the proposed amendment shall meet at least one of the following criteria:

I. Receive a simple majority in favor of the ayes (among all "aye" and "nay" votes) in at least four of the five Atlasia regions

II. Receive a two-thirds majority in favor of the ayes (among all "aye" and "nay" votes) in Atlasia at-large.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fellow Senators,

The issue that will be debated here is a very old one. In fact, this is not the first time when we attempt to modify the amending procedure of our constitution. Why ? Because, in its current form, our amending procedure is particularly unfair. Since I joined Atlasia, I have seen tons of constitutional Amendments failing despite the fact a strong majority of Atlasians had supported them. Under the current system, an Amendment needs the backing of four of the five Atlasian regions. No matter how strongly the Atlasian people supports it, two regions are sufficient to block any attempt of reform. If I well remember, I have seen a couple of time Amendments receiving the support of 60% of the citizens and still being rejected.

The Amendment I propose is aimed to make the process slightly fairer. Under my proposal, an Amendment which receives a significant share of the At-large Atlasian vote won't need the support of four regions to be ratified. If more than one third of all the Atlasian citizens, representing an absolute majority of votes cast (which means abstain votes are counted as nay), support the Amendment, the support of three regions will be sufficient to ensure its ratification. Is this system excessive ? I don't think so. Those requirements are met, it would ensure that :
- A significant share of Atlasians have supported it (no incentives due to low turnout)
- An uncontestable majority of the voters have expressed their support
- A majority of regions also supported it
Those requirements are strong enough to ensure that Amendments don't pass too easily. At the same time, they ensure that the Atlasian people isn't denied the right to decide. Because this is the main issue, fellow Senators : should the Amending power be given to the people ? It is my conviction, as a (small d) democrat, that the answer is yes. If we establish strong guarantees (and my proposal does), it is fair to let the people decide at last. That how things usually work in a democracy.

Of course, there are many possible objections to this proposal. Some will claim that Atlasia is a federation, and thus that regions should have their say in the Amending procedure. My answer is simple : regions will have their say under my proposal. No Amendment will ever be adopted if it is not supported by a majority of regions. Of course, this majority is lowered from 80% to 60%, but it remains a strong guarantee for regional rights. Fellow Senators, all our political system is based on a balance between the power of the people and the power of the regions. The way we elect our Senators is the perfect example of this balance. Why in the world should the Amending procedure be an exception to this rule ? My proposal simply aims to establish a more balanced system, where both the regions and the people have their say.

Finally, some could say that my proposal is, in fact, motivated by partisan considerations. That my true goal is just to advantage the reformist left against the conservative right. That I want this Amendment to be adopted because this will make easier to pass other, "left-wing" Amendments. To those people, I would like to remind you an amendment against which I strongly campaigned : the Ludlow Amendment. The Ludlow Amendment, introduced by a controversial Senator for mostly ideological purposes, has garnered much support among Atlasian citizens. Despite receiving a strong popular support, the Ludlow Amendment failed because two regions refused to ratify it. Under my proposal, it would have been ratified. I hope this is enough to convince you that partisan considerations have nothing to do with that. I am glad the Ludlow Amendment has failed, but I think that, in a fair system, it should have been ratified.

I hope this is enough to convince you, fellow Senators, of the legitimacy of my proposal. This is not a partisan, ideological or personal issue : it's mostly a common sense issue. And when it comes to common sense, it is our duty to show we are able to gather beyond partisan considerations. We have an occasion to improve our constitution : let's do it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I didn't realize we had been teleported back to 2009.

I don't know if I have time to effect a strong opposition tonight. If not it will be tomorrow night that I respond and explain why this should not be passed.


You say you have seen tons of amendments failing. I have seen maybe two or three, The most glaring one of which, was the previous version of this and for good reason. The effort was made because a group wanted to abolish Regional Senate seats and they realized that unless they manipulated the rules they wouldn't stand a chance. A high threshold is present to prevent such a thin majority (60% is not that large) from fundamentally changing the system to further empower that 60% at the expense of the rest, which is what abolishing the Regional seats was meant to do. Hence why there was a push for a similar modification just prior to what was almost an assured attempt to dismantle those seats, because they realized the current protections were to great an obstacle to be successfully overcome and their power grab (repealing the Senate seats) achieved.  Thus it is my opinion that they current requirements serve a purpose, are adequate for that purpose and seeing as how even the ERA has passed in Atlasia, I don't see how it hinders the principle of majority rule to an extent that they now need to be changed to achieve some set of "fairness".

I am sure this is only the beginning of this exchange. 

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I echo my fellow Senator from the IDS. I cannot support this bill.

[Lief 🗽]

I like the idea behind this bill (because I think it's ridiculous that made-up geographical "regions" that people decide to live in and don't really have any attachment to are more important than the popular vote), but I think it would be simpler to just make the second condition "receiving 2/3 of the nationwide popular vote" or something.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I didn't realize we had been teleported back to 2009.

I don't know if I have time to effect a strong opposition tonight. If not it will be tomorrow night that I respond and explain why this should not be passed.

Regional Rights > Democracy?

And still holds true.

This Amendment could be put more simply, I think, but regions very clearly warp our ratification process and should have no, or at the very least such as in this Amendment, a more limited place, in it.

[bgwah]

It's a little wordy, but I might support something like an amendment passing if passes in 4/5 regions or it gets 60% of the total popular vote---whichever comes first. Amendments are supposed to be more difficult to pass than normal legislation, but perhaps we could find a more reasonable middle ground.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Senator NC Yankee,

I admit I'm a bit disappointed by your argument. Are you implying that my aim by proposing this Amendment is actually to facilitate a further Amendment regarding regional Senate seats ? And thus that it is for partisan reasons ?

I thought I had already made clear that this was not my goal. But probably I wasn't enough clear, so let's put it in another way. I will not introduce any Amendment abolishing regional Senate seats. I still strongly oppose them, but the people have spoken on this issue several times and my priority is to focus on new ideas. Let me tell it once again, I have no intention to abolish regional Senate seats. If someone else does, I might support his proposal, but nobody seems to be interested to that so far. I will probably introduce other institutional reforms dealing with the legislative power, but nothing that would threaten regional Senate seats. Was I clear enough ?

What can I add now ? Once again, the Ludlow Amendment. I opposed it and would oppose it again if it were reintroduced, but the people have spoken and we ought to respect their will. Because this is the main point, fellow colleague : the people. It's not about what I or you think about regional Senate seats or another random issue, it's about repsecting the voice of the people. You claim that the "four regions rule" doesn't prevent an Amendment which garners strong popular support to pass. Theoretically speaking, you are wrong : it is possible for an Amendment to get over 70% of the vote and still fail. Maybe unlikely, but possible. On a more likely situation, we could see the high 50s-low 60s for a failed Amendment. It has happened in the past. It can happen again.

There is something I really don't get in your logic. You say that "A high threshold is present to prevent such a thin majority (60% is not that large) from fundamentally changing the system to further empower that 60% at the expense of the rest, which is what abolishing the Regional seats was meant to do". What does it mean : that a minority of 40% of Atlasians should be able to dictate their will to the other 60% for the simple reason that the status quo advantages them ? How in the world is it fair ? You seem to think that the status quo is inherently superior to the point that if 40% of the people supports it it's enough for it to prevail. What makes the status quo so good in your opinion ?

My proposal is a perfect balance between regional rights and democracy. Instead, you seem to think that regional rights and the status quo are more important than giving the people the right to choose. I find this opinion hardly acceptable. Maybe I misunderstood your purpose, and I would be glad to hear your answer. But I really wonder how you can honestly think the current situation is fair. How you can complain about "60% of the voters imposing their will to the other 40%" and accept that 40% impose their will to the other 60%. In every political system, people impose their will to other people. In a democracy, the majority imposes (to some extent) its will to the minority. If we allow the contrary to happen, there is something wrong in our democracy.

I have the feeling that you are the one who is pursuing partisan purposes, Yankee. I have the sad feeling that you support status quo simply because you like it and because you know a majority of Atlasians don't. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a little wordy, but I might support something like an amendment passing if passes in 4/5 regions or it gets 60% of the total popular vote---whichever comes first. Amendments are supposed to be more difficult to pass than normal legislation, but perhaps we could find a more reasonable middle ground.

60% seems a bit high a threshold to me. Can we agree with a 55% threshold, while maintaining the other requirements ? (the 35% requirement will de facto raise the threshold to around 60% anyways, because turnout for Amendments is usually pretty low) Would you support the bill in this case ?

[Franzl]

As a member of the Regional Protection Party, I tend to support this.

It's no great secret that I don't see much point in the regional structures as far as elections are concerned.....and especially for ratification of amendments.

At least regional Senate seats serve a purpose....a direct connection between a group of voters and an elected representative. But requiring majorities in a certain number of regions doesn't seem logical to me, rather I see it more as a pointless way of distorting the will of the people.

If it were up to me, a national popular vote would be the only relevant key to ratification (with perhaps a 60% minimum or so for successful ratification).

Regional protection to me is more about actual politics, allowing regions to make their own laws on a majority of issues.....allowing regions to experiment with their own systems, allowing regions to compete with each other for business, etc. In other words, things I think lead to better policies over time.

Making ratification of amendments more democratic, though.....doesn't actually weaken regions. I urge my party to look at the bigger picture here.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'd be open to this if the threshold was higher, something like 3/4 or so, not 60%. I still would like to see all these amendments that fail though, as I've only witnessed two or three while being here and I'm far more washed up than you.

Keep in mind that these are supposed to be difficult to pass, not easy. There's a reason we have the current system in place. Also, Atlasia is not a democracy, so throw that argument out.

It also depends on how much ropE I'm willing to give. If this is a build up to a bill abolishing regions, I'll die on this senate floor before I allow that to happen. I'll take you at your word.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

As a member of the Regional Protection Party, I tend to support this.

It's no great secret that I don't see much point in the regional structures as far as elections are concerned.....and especially for ratification of amendments.

At least regional Senate seats serve a purpose....a direct connection between a group of voters and an elected representative. But requiring majorities in a certain number of regions doesn't seem logical to me, rather I see it more as a pointless way of distorting the will of the people.

If it were up to me, a national popular vote would be the only relevant key to ratification (with perhaps a 60% minimum or so for successful ratification).

Regional protection to me is more about actual politics, allowing regions to make their own laws on a majority of issues.....allowing regions to experiment with their own systems, allowing regions to compete with each other for business, etc. In other words, things I think lead to better policies over time.

Making ratification of amendments more democratic, though.....doesn't actually weaken regions. I urge my party to look at the bigger picture here.

Oh, I'm looking at the big picture. I'd argue this may hurt the legitimacy of the amendment process more than regions rights. As long as regions are left alone in terms of their local governments, I'm fine and happy, but I don't think we should make passing amendments that much easier. That's why if the threshold was set at 75% or so, I'd likely get behind this. Even setting it at 60% still may let one ideology or another push through a dangerous amendment. If im making any sense....

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, long posts seem to be pretty useless, so I'll try responding point by point.

I still would like to see all these amendments that fail though, as I've only witnessed two or three while being here and I'm far more washed up than you.

I can remember at least four :
- The Amendment that would have made the procedure fairer
- The Amendment for "regional partnerships" (aka Evil Anti-Region Power Grabbing Amendment according to my dear North Carolinians)
- An Amendment regarding capital punishment
- The Ludlow Amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is still difficult to pass under my system. My proposal makes it slightly easier and a lot fairer (in the sense that the people has the right to decide).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends how you define democracy, I guess. I don't really want to enter in such an off-topic discussion, but we have to agree that it is mostly a democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Abolishing regions ? LOL, this would never pass. Even abolishing regional Senate seats would be impossible under my system. You have nothing to fear in this regard.

Oh, I'm looking at the big picture. I'd argue this may hurt the legitimacy of the amendment process more than regions rights. As long as regions are left alone in terms of their local governments, I'm fine and happy, but I don't think we should make passing amendments that much easier.

See what I already said. It's not like my system would make it easy to pass.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You aren't. If more than 60% of the people of Atlasia share an ideology, why should they be denied the right to amend the Constitution according to their ideology ? It's not like our current system is ideologically neutral. No Constitution in the world is ideologically neutral. The only thing is that with this system, the partisans of status quo are unfairly advantaged. Once again, the point is not whether changing the constitution would advantage an ideology : it's whether status quo advantages an ideology. Because it's the partisans of status quo who are advantaged.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

There are certainly other reasons why those aforementioned amendments failed. Anyway, how about we compromise and say 2/3 of the population or something must ratify for it to pass? I'm still not that comfortable with 60%, but I'm willing to work with y'all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There are certainly other reasons why those aforementioned amendments failed. Anyway, how about we compromise and say 2/3 of the population or something must ratify for it to pass? I'm still not that comfortable with 60%, but I'm willing to work with y'all.

What about 40% of all Atlasian citizens ? Turnout is always around 50-60% so it would be a strong clause.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The purpose of having a threshold is to ensure that amending the constitution doesn't happen very often and only when absolutely necessary to bring the constitution to allign with its stated goals, to deal with a vagueness being used to deprieve someone of their rights, and in the case of this game, to provide the ability to change something that has become unworkable. The amending process is there to ensure that the ability to change the constitution is present when necessary, it is not suppose to be an open invite to constant amending. Some amendments should not be passed.

And I am not wrong. I said nothing about amendments getting over 70% not failing. Please don't say I am wrong about something I didn't even say.

Senator NC Yankee,

I admit I'm a bit disappointed by your argument. Are you implying that my aim by proposing this Amendment is actually to facilitate a further Amendment regarding regional Senate seats ? And thus that it is for partisan reasons ?

I thought I had already made clear that this was not my goal. But probably I wasn't enough clear, so let's put it in another way. I will not introduce any Amendment abolishing regional Senate seats. I still strongly oppose them, but the people have spoken on this issue several times and my priority is to focus on new ideas. Let me tell it once again, I have no intention to abolish regional Senate seats. If someone else does, I might support his proposal, but nobody seems to be interested to that so far. I will probably introduce other institutional reforms dealing with the legislative power, but nothing that would threaten regional Senate seats. Was I clear enough ?

Have you ever heard of the word "unintentional" or the phrase, "unintended consequence"? I didn't say you "intentionally" are helping to facilitate the abolition of Regional seats.

Ok, long posts seem to be pretty useless, so I'll try responding point by point.

I still would like to see all these amendments that fail though, as I've only witnessed two or three while being here and I'm far more washed up than you.

I can remember at least four :
- The Amendment that would have made the procedure fairer
- The Amendment for "regional partnerships" (aka Evil Anti-Region Power Grabbing Amendment according to my dear North Carolinians)
- An Amendment regarding capital punishment
- The Ludlow Amendment

1. An attempt to game the system was rejected thanks to the preexisting rules
2. Another attempt to game the system was rejected thanks to the pre-existing rules
3. Which was an attempt to target a single region who still had it and ended up abolishing it on its one. Once again the system did its job and prevented the majority from ganging up on the minority. You may have an opinion on the death penalty but that doesn't give you the right to impose it on others who disagree. And as it turns out, unless my memory is failing the IDS abolished it anyway.
4. A functionally impracticall piece of trash.

Actually, you are making a good case here to keep the current system. The purpose of the amendment process is to prevent the system from being rigged, attempts to impose "Regional level policy" it didn't want, and finally to make sure garbage ends up where it belongs. The Ludlow amendment shouldn't have been passed just because a majority wanted. The current threshold is not unfair. Unfair would be reducing the level to a point where suddenly a Hitler type take over becomes possible when you get 51% or 55% disgruntled enough to elect such a nutcase and pass his referenda. One would think a European would be all for requiring a higher threshold before allowing a change to the document that lays out both basic freedoms and establishes a democratic process, with the history they have had with such "plebicites"


As I said before. The word fair is abitrary and undefined. You say 55% is a high enough threshold and is fairest. I could say a minimum 75% is the fairest because it ensures the process is used properly and that miniority groups are protected. We each define fair differently, hence why I won't say which is fair and which isn't in this arguement. The threshold is there for a reason and there is a reason it is not a simple majority or just slightly above one like 55%. The primary concern is the gaming of the system. 55% can easily disenfranchise the other 45%, can modify the voting system, Senate structure or do whatever it wants.

As a member of the Regional Protection Party, I tend to support this.

It's no great secret that I don't see much point in the regional structures as far as elections are concerned.....and especially for ratification of amendments.

At least regional Senate seats serve a purpose....a direct connection between a group of voters and an elected representative. But requiring majorities in a certain number of regions doesn't seem logical to me, rather I see it more as a pointless way of distorting the will of the people.

If it were up to me, a national popular vote would be the only relevant key to ratification (with perhaps a 60% minimum or so for successful ratification).

Regional protection to me is more about actual politics, allowing regions to make their own laws on a majority of issues.....allowing regions to experiment with their own systems, allowing regions to compete with each other for business, etc. In other words, things I think lead to better policies over time.

Making ratification of amendments more democratic, though.....doesn't actually weaken regions. I urge my party to look at the bigger picture here.

It is suppose to distort the will of the people. If the majority were to get its way 100% of the time, democracy wouldn't last. I realize this opens up the charge of fearmongering but I think we will never be able to understand the arguement untill the principles motivating the high threshold have been thoroughly explained.

And in case someone bring up the arguement that the current process doesn't give "the people" a say separate from the individual regional votes, I am prepared to offer a compromsie in advance to destroy that point before it is made. I would support the addition of a 75% of the total vote requirement being added to the current mix. Nor "or's" and no rube goldberg machines. 2/3rds of the Senate, 3/4ths of the regions and 3/4th's of the people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If more than 60% of the people of Atlasia share an ideology, why should they be denied the right to amend the Constitution according to their ideology ? It's not like our current system is ideologically neutral. No Constitution in the world is ideologically neutral. The only thing is that with this system, the partisans of status quo are unfairly advantaged. Once again, the point is not whether changing the constitution would advantage an ideology : it's whether status quo advantages an ideology. Because it's the partisans of status quo who are advantaged.

The constitution should be remade in the image of the latest 60% fad? See ya democracy and freedom, it was nice knowing ya. 

Because, might DOES NOT make right when dealing with the ability to change the document that also includes both the democratic processes and the freedoms we hold dear. It should be difficult to change to protect that.

If 60% wants Hitler, there is nothing "unfair" about a process that would stop him inspite of that high number. Because inevitably, those 60% are voting to kill part of the 40% opposition. There is not moral equivalency in governing systems. And just because the latest fad is a demented psychopath doesn't mean that we should just say good bye to a system that doesn't seek to exterminate part of the population.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I do not believe in using a majority or super majority as an excuse to deny the rights of the minority.  The tyranny of the majority is alive and well (as you've seen with all the marriage amendments here in the U.S.).

Legislation is the will of the people.  Constitutions are what ensure the people can have a will to begin with.  If an issue is not important enough to pass a difficult amendment process, then use the legislative body to achieve the desired law.  Then, if in 10 years time, stances change... it can be repealed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yakee, I honestly don't understand if you are being naive or again just defending your own interests. Nobody in Atlasia is willing to deprive anyone from their rights. And even if someone were, he could never garner a majority, let alone a supermajority.

And yet, you keep arguing about the superiority of status quo over reform. This hardly makes sense. What if it is our current constitution which deprived people from their rights, and an Amendment would restore justice ? You say there is a threat that a majority could potentially harm the minority through an Amendment. But what if the majority harms the minority through the constitution, and an Amendment is proposed to prevent them from doing ? In 1860, more than 40% of Americans supported slavery. An Amendment abolishing slavery would never have passed if it weren't for the Civil War. So, thanks God there was the Constitution to prevent people from oppressing other people...

Yankee, the truth is that you oppose this because you are unfairly favored by status quo. Your comments prove it :

1. An attempt to game the system was rejected thanks to the preexisting rules
2. Another attempt to game the system was rejected thanks to the pre-existing rules
3. Which was an attempt to target a single region who still had it and ended up abolishing it on its one. Once again the system did its job and prevented the majority from ganging up on the minority. You may have an opinion on the death penalty but that doesn't give you the right to impose it on others who disagree. And as it turns out, unless my memory is failing the IDS abolished it anyway.

What you call "attempts to game the system" are simply reform proposals you disagree with. If the constitution allowed regional partnerships and that someoned proposed an amendment to abolish them, would you call it an "attempt to game the system" ?
You wouldn't, because it would serve your interests/ideology. The current amending procedure is simply a way to prevent a strong majority of Atlasian citizens from changing the status quo. And the reason why you like it is that you are happy with the status quo. If the status quo were different, your views would be different too.

[Badger]

I'd be open to this if the threshold was higher, something like 3/4 or so, not 60%.

Or maybe 2/3? Just throwing that out there.

BTW: GREAT debate guys!

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a side note, I'd like to see Amendments being proposed and maybe put on vote. Nobody said the current draft was perfect and couldn't be modified to account for constructive critics.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'll propose an amendment. Just gimme a sec guys and gals. Writing one on an iPad will be tough and my laptopvis in for repairs.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yakee, I honestly don't understand if you are being naive or again just defending your own interests. Nobody in Atlasia is willing to deprive anyone from their rights. And even if someone were, he could never garner a majority, let alone a supermajority.

You bitch at me for unfairly claiming you had alterior motives ( which I actually didn't do, you imagined it) and now you claim that I am doing this because I benefit from the status quo. LOL. How many Presidential elections have we won recently? Maybe we should change how that is elected because we can't get our way. You don't change the system because you don't like the results. That is why the previous partnership amendment was rigging the system, because it left an open invitation for strategic registration (Something which these same people had railed against time and again when it benefitted them). Even Marokai Blue admitted there some very critical holes in that attempt.

The Constitution is not just about today or tomorrow but next year and next century. Ask someone Germany in 1920 and I'll bet few would have said it was remotely possible that someone like Hitler would be in power in just over 10 years. But it still happened.

Yankee, the truth is that you oppose this because you are unfairly favored by status quo. Your comments prove it :

1. An attempt to game the system was rejected thanks to the preexisting rules
2. Another attempt to game the system was rejected thanks to the pre-existing rules
3. Which was an attempt to target a single region who still had it and ended up abolishing it on its one. Once again the system did its job and prevented the majority from ganging up on the minority. You may have an opinion on the death penalty but that doesn't give you the right to impose it on others who disagree. And as it turns out, unless my memory is failing the IDS abolished it anyway.

What you call "attempts to game the system" are simply reform proposals you disagree with. If the constitution allowed regional partnerships and that someoned proposed an amendment to abolish them, would you call it an "attempt to game the system" ?
You wouldn't, because it would serve your interests/ideology. The current amending procedure is simply a way to prevent a strong majority of Atlasian citizens from changing the status quo. And the reason why you like it is that you are happy with the status quo. If the status quo were different, your views would be different too.

If someone preposed a regional Senate partnership amendment that contained nothing to prevent or protect a "hostile takeover scenario" which I laid out, yes it is a ing attempt to rig the system, even if that wasn't the intent of the original authors. There is more to this sh**t then just face value.

No I would not. I suggest you not even think to try and assume, guess, or pretend my motivations as you always get them wrong. If I told you my real reason here, you would take it as an insult. And considering your penchant for pretending I say things I didn't, I am sure that will be the result.

We established last time that the states involvement in the process was not just for "administrative purposes" as some claimed. It is one more check on the populace and its whims.

I do not believe in using a majority or super majority as an excuse to deny the rights of the minority.  The tyranny of the majority is alive and well (as you've seen with all the marriage amendments here in the U.S.).

Legislation is the will of the people.  Constitutions are what ensure the people can have a will to begin with.  If an issue is not important enough to pass a difficult amendment process, then use the legislative body to achieve the desired law.  Then, if in 10 years time, stances change... it can be repealed.

I agree and at times that can be the best way to deal with such problems to ensure that the perfect isn't the enemy of the good.


Antonio brought up the civil war. This was a big mistake do to my good knowlege of the subject. Such an amendement to abolish slavery wouldn't have been on the table were it not for the War. Remember Lincoln didn't want to abolish slavery in 1860, because they realized that inspite of the evil of slavery, its immorality, and its stain on the American promise, that the survival of the American experiment had to take priority and a split had to be avoided, hence his containemnt policy. It is the same reason why there were some ridiculous compromises put into the Constitution like the 3/5th's. Because eventually freedom would prevail and those blights would be changed if process of democracy survived.  The very compromises were made knowing that the document they were creating would ensure that those problems could and effect would be fixed, and that is why they were done. 


But you can't seriously claim that the Civil War wouldn't have occured if a 55% plebiscite had been held to outlaw slavery in 1855. It would have happened five years sooner. And it probably wouldn't have passed anyway because of the risk to the union.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry, I still don't understand. You spend a lot of time criticizing my implying that you defend your own interests (which I can understand, it was aimed to be polemical), but I still don't see a clear answer to my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How in the world did that Amendment favor strategic registration ? To the contrary it would have helped making it more pointless if several regions held their Senate elections together. You can say you disagree with the Amendment and its purpose, but why in the world it would be an attempt to rig the system ? You're right, maybe its application would favor certain parties at the expense of other parties. So ? It also mean the constitution advantages other parties at the expense of the first. Why do you see "power grabs" only in changes and never in the status quo ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Come on, Atlasia is not the 1920s Germany. You can use this example as much as you want, but you see inexistent threats. As far as I know, nobody has ever introduced an Amendment aimed to grab power, and if someone ever did, it would fail epically whatever system is used. You can argue as you want that we need a strong guarantee against power grabbing, there is no sign of such threat. Except if you call "power grab" anything you don't like.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the contrary. The reason why I got you wrong a couple of time is because your rationale is bizarre and woolly. If you said things more clearly, I wouldn't need to guess what you mean. So, please, tell me your "real reason".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you are the one who got me wrong. I never said the abolition of slavery would have passed if the Amendment system had been easier.

My main point is that, sometimes Constitution=oppression and abuse of power and Amendment=fairer system. And thus, if you set too hard rules for Amendments to pass, it leads to advantaging a minority against the majority, and prevent people from putting an end to power grab. In one word, by wanting to protect us against power grabbing Amendments, you may help protecting a power grabbing Constitution. That's why it's not enough to say "we need to protect us against power grabs". We must ensure a fair balance between the protection of the constitution and the ability to change what does not work in our constitution. Got it ?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sorry, I still don't understand. You spend a lot of time criticizing my implying that you defend your own interests (which I can understand, it was aimed to be polemical), but I still don't see a clear answer to my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How in the world did that Amendment favor strategic registration ? To the contrary it would have helped making it more pointless if several regions held their Senate elections together. You can say you disagree with the Amendment and its purpose, but why in the world it would be an attempt to rig the system ? You're right, maybe its application would favor certain parties at the expense of other parties. So ? It also mean the constitution advantages other parties at the expense of the first. Why do you see "power grabs" only in changes and never in the status quo ?

Which point was that? Why I insist on maintaining this high threshold. I think its obvious by now. I don't think the constitution should be easy to amend at all.

Because, it opened up the risk of someone moving several people into a region to tip the balance in favor of joining such a partnership. You have witnessed first hand how a region can be "modified". Having a partnership system opens up a risk of regions essentially "conquering" others. Again you need only to look back to Hamilton and the NE to see similarly high handed tactics, so it isn't reasonable to say "that would never happen".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Come on, Atlasia is not the 1920s Germany. You can use this example as much as you want, but you see inexistent threats. As far as I know, nobody has ever introduced an Amendment aimed to grab power, and if someone ever did, it would fail epically whatever system is used. You can argue as you want that we need a strong guarantee against power grabbing, there is no sign of such threat. Except if you call "power grab" anything you don't like.

Antonio there is never a sign, and yes, one would hope that such a thing would never ever get 5% of the vote. But we would be ignoring the lessons of history if we dismissed the risk of something like this happening 20, 30, 50 years down the road, just because it doesn't seem likely or possible right now.

More ridiculous exaggeration. I will view anything as a power grab that in some way reduces freedom, reduces the consitutional checks and balances between branches, between levels of gov't (Fed, State/Regional, Local), and between the people as a whole and the states (the Congressional balance).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the contrary. The reason why I got you wrong a couple of time is because your rationale is bizarre and woolly. If you said things more clearly, I wouldn't need to guess what you mean. So, please, tell me your "real reason".

My rationale is simple. The threshold is there, is conducted on a region by region basis, and is high for very damn good reason and the reasons you have given so far are insufficient to justify ignoring that reason and change it to something else. You point to a handfull of amendments that failed (and should have failed) but make no mention how many countless amendments and complete rewrites have passed rendering an arguement, that it is impossible to get anything passed, completely false. So the arguement is that the process is too difficult, and thus "unfair" instead. Yet the intent was to make amendments, especially divisive ones, difficult to pass even if supported by a majority of the people, again for the sake of protecting the most important aspects from the whims of popular convenience.

I find your arguement bizarre. Especially when the first justification I see is fairness and second is 60% should have their way with the Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you are the one who got me wrong. I never said the abolition of slavery would have passed if the Amendment system had been easier.

My main point is that, sometimes Constitution=oppression and abuse of power and Amendment=fairer system. And thus, if you set too hard rules for Amendments to pass, it leads to advantaging a minority against the majority, and prevent people from putting an end to power grab. In one word, by wanting to protect us against power grabbing Amendments, you may help protecting a power grabbing Constitution. That's why it's not enough to say "we need to protect us against power grabs". We must ensure a fair balance between the protection of the constitution and the ability to change what does not work in our constitution. Got it ?

You can't grab what you already have and I tend to think the Constitution has far more right then wrong, to a considerable extent. Thus the burden should be placed on the one seeking amendment, so that only amendments that improve the constitution are passed. Again, going back to a doomsday scenario, is there anyone in this room who thinks the status quo constitution shouldn't have a leg up on negative malevalent forces?


Here we go again with that damn "fair" word again. We do have the ability to change the constitution and I do beleive we have passed several important amendments over the years that have improved the Constitution, have we not? So then obviously the current system works does it not?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you said yourself, regions can be "colonized" with or without regional partnerships. Would regional partenrships encourage such practices ? Not really. What could happen is that people register in regions in order to take over their government, try getting the most regional Senate seats, and maybe reinforce their ability to pass Amendments. Regional partnerships wouldn't be that incentive.


I'll give up on the "Hitler scenario" because of course the "you never know" argument is unbeatable. Of course it would be nice to bring some realism in the discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok. But isn't it possible to disagree on what should be the relation between the Federal gov and the Regions ? You think the arrangement between them as established by the constitution is the right one, and thus that modifying it would be a power grab. But some people can consider that the current arrangement is unfair, and that modifying it would be a step forward a best arrangement. So, once again, power grab is a change you disagree with.


I understand better what you mean, and I agree, as you say, that "the burden should be placed on the one seeking amendment". The only thing we disagree about is the extent of this burden. I think that, in order to avoid partisan/frivolous Amendments, a threshold should be set. But I also think that we must make sure that the people still has its say on the constitution, and that a minority couldn't constantly block any attempt to change the system. You care about protecting the constitution against the "tyranny of the majority", but you don't see that we also have to protect the right for the people to fix what doesn't work even if it doesn't please a large part of the electorate. The reason why I use (and will keep using) the word "fair" is simply because the issue is about bringing some balance between these two necessities. And the reason why your position is unfair is because you only see the first and neglect the second.