SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (sent to regions)

[Хahar 🤔]

This isn't the side of Xahar I was nostalgic for by any means.

The reaction to my return was far too laudatory. I'm not accustomed to being well-liked, so I have to fix that somehow.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So are my amendments on the previous page going to get considered?

[bgwah]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the friendly amendments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CatoMinor]

With the proposed amendments added, I have no objections to this amendment.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why limit region's to using a majority vote instead of, say,  2/3?

I have no inherent problem with that being a requirement; I just think the standard of passage should be universal. Changing the procedure is one thing, but creating an artificially high barrier to passage is a bit unfair.

How can you say the standard of passage should be universal at the same time you are saying that in some regions it could be done without a popular vote at all, or that it may require the governor's approval in one region but not in another?  The whole point of this amendment seems to be to get rid of a universal standard of passage. And our standard for passage is already artificial, since there's nothing axiomatic about saying it should require the approval of 4 regions as opposed to 3 or 5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see what that means now, at least. I have no inherent problem here either, but would that really matter, that much?
[/quote]

For those regions who require a vote by both the legislature and the people at large to change their constitution, it would be significant.  The ambiguity in the current language is this: It either means that a change to the ratification process must be made only by the legislature AND only once every sixty days, or it means the change can only be made once every sixty days IF that change is by the legislature.
But here's the key issue: Somewhere along the way, a region is going to pass a change to the ratification process that is ends up being unintentionally impractical and unworkable for one reason or another.  And so they'll just have to wait two months to fix it - by which time people might have forgotten about it. If that's a risk you're willing to take, okay, but it's worth bringing up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should that be the case? Not that I'm necessarily opposed, but, this is treading dangerously close to just also allowing regions to outright restrict votes. A quorum, specifically, seems like an unfair thing to institute. I'm certainly in favor of allowing regions to tinker with their own ratification procedure, but there must still be some standard of fairness.

A quorum would mean that an amendment would have to be voted on (either yea, nay or abstain) by some portion of the region, ex. 1/4 of its citizens.  I don't see that as unfair - it would be protection against ratification by a very small number of people. Allowing a vote to happen over more than 7 days (that could still be the minimum number) could let more votes be included.  I think the regions are competent to decide these things while still being more fair than having some regions have a popular ratification process while others do not.

[bgwah]

The amendments have passed as friendly.

[bgwah]

I believe this is what it currently looks like now:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

The Fair Amending Procedure passed earlier this year. It was ultimately thrown out based on a technicality. But I don't think that means we should just give up on it forever and accept this instead.

Thus I'm offering the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It should look familiar...

[Marokai Backbeat]

I do not accept your amendment as friendly on the grounds that this completely alters the point of the original legislation and you should bring it up separately.

[bgwah]

^Fair enough...

Senators, we're now voting on the following amendment. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AYE.

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Didn't we try to pass a bill almost exclusively like the amendment being proposed? Except I wanted 2/3 at large?

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Mopsus]

Nay

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nay

[bgwah]

With 2 ayes and 6 nays the amendment has failed.

[bgwah]

Final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

Abstain

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nay

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.

[Mopsus]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nay