Amendment Tracker and Analysis Extravanganza

[shua]

Fair Amending Procedure Amedment (redux)
We're voting on this again? yeah, some procedural snafu made the last time we voted on this not quite official. That problem has since been corrected (we think). The vote has closed already in the Midwest and IDS, but elsewhere the vote continues until the 12th. So far, it's failing it's own test - getting nowhere near 2/3 of the transregional vote.

Midwest (closed)  3 Aye - 1 Nay
IDS (closed)        1 Aye - 5 Nay - 1 abstain
Pacific                 5 Aye - 2 Nay
Northeast            6 Aye - 5 Nay
Mideast               0 Aye - 8 Nay

[Californian Tony]

Several IDSers who voted Aye the first time all voted nay this time. I'd really like to know why.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=68.0


Turnout was cut in half for one. Lack of an aggressive push, maybe?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the biggest problem is the lack of promotion and advocacy for these amendments. Remember how devisive the Ludlow Amendment was? If such intense debate had occured I am confident Fair Amending Procedure would have passed once again.


You know, you could try suing and seeing if you can get the Supreme Court to rule that it had passed once it was ratified the last time. At the very least it could provide clarification whether the Governors can pre-ratify an amendment (provided the text is exactly the same) since they have such flexibity regarding ratification after senate passage (as late as years afterwards even, or not at all).

[Californian Tony]

You know, you could try suing and seeing if you can get the Supreme Court to rule that it had passed once it was ratified the last time. At the very least it could provide clarification whether the Governors can pre-ratify an amendment (provided the text is exactly the same) since they have such flexibity regarding ratification after senate passage (as late as years afterwards even, or not at all).

I would lose anyways. But I can't believe I literally PMed people who supported it about supporting it again and that those people voted nay. It was Yelnoc, TB75, and many others... Also look at Duke, who was one of those who pushed forward the final compromise !

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You know, you could try suing and seeing if you can get the Supreme Court to rule that it had passed once it was ratified the last time. At the very least it could provide clarification whether the Governors can pre-ratify an amendment (provided the text is exactly the same) since they have such flexibity regarding ratification after senate passage (as late as years afterwards even, or not at all).

I would lose anyways. But I can't believe I literally PMed people who supported it about supporting it again and that those people voted nay. It was Yelnoc, TB75, and many others... Also look at Duke, who was one of those who pushed forward the final compromise !

Yea, but I still think the public campaign has an important impact on interest and then turnout.

I certainly have not been privy to any efforts regarding any of these amendments. I haven't had the time, so don't look at me.

[shua]

Fair Amending Procedure Amendment (final result)

Ironically, this amendment meant to promote a more democratic and less regional process gained the vote of the majority of the regions at 3-2, but lost the popular vote by that same ratio. Not having won four out of five regions, it fails regardless.

Midwest        3 Aye  1 Nay
Pacific           5 Aye  2 Nay 
Northeast      7 Aye  6 Nay
IDS              1 Aye  5 Nay   1 Abstain
Mideast        0 Aye  10 Nay

Total            16 Aye    24 Nay  1 Abstain

[Jayhawker]

I was really surprised the Mideast voted unanimously against it.

[Californian Tony]

Bunch of hacks.

[ZuWo]

Not even the regions where the Fair Amending Procedure Amendment received a majority of the votes supported it by a convincing margin. That really surprised me - apart from the fact that no one in our region came out in support of it, as Tmth said.

Great maps, btw!

[Vasall des Midas]

Well you and I are retired so I guess it's all just chatter. But Governor's trading states would make the game more fun. In a chaotic sort of way.

We did, of course, actually trade New Mexico for Montana at some point early in the game. Then unsuccessfully fought, for years, to get it back.

[Yelnoc]

Bunch of hacks.

Not really.  The bill would cede regional power.

[President Marokai]

Bunch of hacks.

[A-Bob]

Bunch of hacks.

Not really.  The bill would cede regional power.

^

And in case you haven't noticed we're the Regional Protection Party

[Californian Tony]

Opposing common sense reforms just because they don't fit your ideology (like "regional rights") is the definition of hackery.

[A-Bob]

Opposing common sense reforms just because they don't fit your ideology (like "regional rights") is the definition of hackery.

It's the exact opposite of common sense, and yes we're going to support our ideology of giving power to the regions. The federal government already controls so much and now you want to pass regional rights when amending the Constitution, which usually does not happen lightly.

So if you are opposed to lower taxes since we have massive corporate and individual federal tax rates that discourage jobs and businesses from staying here even though it's common sense to do so you're a hack by your definition for not putting aside your ideology. Ideologies or just that, ideologies. It's what we believe in. Everyone isn't going to throw their stances on the issues aside to line up an unify for one solution presented to every problem.

[ZuWo]

Using "common sense" as an argument on hotly debated issues such as regional rights is not very practical, and thus it is not helpful to call someone a "hack" who doesn't fit one's very subjective definition of "common sense".

[Californian Tony]

Sorry, but I can't see how anyone can genuinely argue that a reform supported by 2/3rds of the citizens shouldn't be passed simply because it means "ceding regional power".

[Yelnoc]

Sorry, but I can't see how anyone can genuinely argue that a reform supported by 2/3rds of the citizens shouldn't be passed simply because it means "ceding regional power".

It cedes the right of regions to be obstructionist, placing democracy over federalism.  In the real world I would support that, but in-game I think a federalist system works much better.

[A-Bob]

Sorry, but I can't see how anyone can genuinely argue that a reform supported by 2/3rds of the citizens shouldn't be passed simply because it means "ceding regional power".

It cedes the right of regions to be obstructionist, placing democracy over federalism.  In the real world I would support that, but in-game I think a federalist system works much better.

Not to mention the fact that here it places zombie votes over active citizens from all sides of the map

[shua]

The Senate Vacancy Regional Flexibility Amendment passed back in the end of July.

We'd be interested to know : have any regions taken an opportunity since then to allow them to fill a Senate vacancy by democratic or some other means beside gubernatorial appointment?

[ilikeverin]

The Senate Vacancy Regional Flexibility Amendment passed back in the end of July.

We'd be interested to know : have any regions taken an opportunity since then to allow them to fill a Senate vacancy by democratic or some other means beside gubernatorial appointment?

Wait, it passed?  I thought for sure some of the anti-reform regions rejected it?

[Junkie]

Pacific did.  Bgwah wrote it.

[shua]

Pacific did.  Bgwah wrote it.

I wrote the amendment, but bgwah proposed a change to it that I accepted as friendly.
But yes, it actually passed all regions unanimously.

[ilikeverin]

Pacific did.  Bgwah wrote it.

I wrote the amendment, but bgwah proposed a change to it that I accepted as friendly.
But yes, it actually passed all regions unanimously.

Oh.  Hmm.  Well, we'll have to fix the defaultness in the Midwest.