Varied Senate Membership Amendment [Debating]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem isn't that I have ran 9 times. The problem is that only once did anyone actually try to run against me in a serious fashion (Though I did make it incredibly easy that cycle ). I can't "prop up" my opponents, though I did try to do that also. I am not sure if it is the "closeness" of people in this game or the fear of a primary/general challenges causing permenent animousities, but for some reason, people are reluctant to challenge incumbents in this game, beyond what one would naturally expect from "strength of incumbents" and "name recognition".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But unless you ban consecutive terms in general, you will have an issue with competative elections where someone is running. This effort mainly seems to be interested in narrowing the problem rather then fixing it. Competative elections also an incentive in the direction of competence. And again, unless you ban all forms of reelection, this will persist with any term limit policy. And such a ban would go to far and create more problems with not enough candidates and such.

We need to change that mentality about reputations and winning. It is patently ridiculous.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Let's try an old pre 17th amendment idea. Have the regional assemblies elect the senators.

Noooooooooooo

I concur...

I actually have long advocated for the regional senators to be exactly that.  First it makes them true "regional senators" representing the region and second, it makes regional legislatures a much more important spot than just something to do until you run for something else (not saying everybody believes that, but some treat it that way.)

If we did that, then technically the regional senators would not be representing the views of their constituents; just the views of the representatives.

Who should be representing the interests of the region should they not? Not offering an opinion here, myself. Atleast, not yet

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Let's try an old pre 17th amendment idea. Have the regional assemblies elect the senators.

Noooooooooooo

I concur...

I actually have long advocated for the regional senators to be exactly that.  First it makes them true "regional senators" representing the region and second, it makes regional legislatures a much more important spot than just something to do until you run for something else (not saying everybody believes that, but some treat it that way.)

If we did that, then technically the regional senators would not be representing the views of their constituents; just the views of the representatives.

Who should be representing the interests of the region should they not? Not offering an opinion here, myself. Atleast, not yet

Yes, but the selection of those who write the laws is something I feel the People should have control over.  And it would be a worse idea to move that idea forward in this game than in real life, since there isn't even a lower house composed of directly-elected Representatives that would balance with the Senate in this scenario.

The idea only concerns half the Senate. What do you think the other half is suppose to be?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is probably outside the realm of my delegation of authority from the VP, but I am sick of looking at this.

Senators, a final vote is now open on this constitutional amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In fact we may have to contemplate some of that variance in membership in about 54 hours.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I switch my vote to Nay.

Senators have 24 hours to change their votes (why I said otherwise in that PM, I don't know. Maybe I was trying to get the remaining holdouts to vote that way. ).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye (4): Clarence, Junkie, Marokai Blue and Nathan
Nay (6): MoPolitico, NC Yankee, Oakvale, Sbane, Scott, and TJ in Cleve
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

With six votes in the negative and only four votes in the affirmative, this bill has failed to receive the required 2/3rds majority and has thus not been passed to the regions.