SENATE BILL: Equal Representation Amendment (Tabled)

[ilikeverin]

Now, just to clarify - This bill would do nothing to the regions, only change up the boundaries for Senate elections?

Precisely.  It is certainly not my desire to tamper with Regional borders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, there was never any confusion at voting time; district maps were generally included in voting booths, so people knew where they were voting in.

Districts were previously abolished under the 23rd Amendment to the Second Constitution.  The 23rd Amendment was largely the work of the esteemed Jas, one of the foremost Midwestern statesmen.  The abolition of districts was first proposed under the End to Districts Amendment, but it failed to be ratified in the Pacific and Southeast; its second iteration passed all regions but the Southeast.

Two good threads debating its merits are this one, where the esteemed Jas first proposed the measure, and the tracking thread for first iteration.  As you can see, the proposal to abolish districts themselves had little to do with the merits of districts per se but had more to do with the concurrent proposal of at-large proportional representation.  (Interestingly, a good deal of the opposition came from those like bgwah who were devoted regionalists and saw the abolition of districts as an anti-Region proposal.)

Given how young this Senate is, I encourage its members to check out at least one redistricting thread to see how they worked.

Essentially, this amendment does change the boundaries of the regions because it splits how the citizens are represented.  Senators are accustomed to representing their entire regions, not select portions of it.  By mandating that a region divides itself for representation purposes, we would be infringing on regions' rights.

Well, 5 members of our body are accustomed to representing the entire nation, not just one Region   I have no idea how this is an "infringement on regions' rights", however; this ensures all regions are treated equally.  Or, if it is, why is it more important for regions to have a right to be represented by a single Senate member than it is for citizens to be given equal representation by elected officials?

I'm not a fan of messing with those regional seats at all. If anything, I'd rather change the at-large seats back to district seats. I always felt this was the best way to go with representation.

Why?  I like at-large seats.  It makes sure activity isn't confined to any one area of the country but is spread evenly.  (Imagine how dead the Pacific/Midwest stuff would be if we didn't have at-large Presidential races and Senate seats )  I mean, I think even better than this proposal would be for Regional seats to be replaced by at-large seats.  But I don't think that's realistic.  This Amendment would ensure we have members of the Senate representing certain parts of the country without skewing the composition of the Senate.

In fact, with At-Large seats (like your Midwest bro Jas tried to use the last time to uphend regional seats) and maybe even with this districting idea, the ones most adversely effected could be the Midwest because of their low population and low activity levels, which could leave them without any Senators. Yet these ideas always seem to be sponsored by Midwesterners. Sacrifice is so noble.

  I think it is certainly the case that, no matter what motives you ascribe to my pushing for this idea, self-interest is not one of them.  It's interesting that the Midwest has always been one of the most anti-regionalist regions despite having (imo) one of the most distinctive regional personalities.  But we have been.

I'm glad that at-large seats are doing at least some of the heavy lifting in making sure we have people represented equally, but I think we can do better.  If we go by active members, it's hard to imagine the Pacific and Midwest meriting so many members

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It does not surprise me that districts were seen as pro-region back in the day when they were used for class B seats. But you must not forget that at that point, districts were only being used for Class B, whereas Regional seats had been used for Class A since the seventh Senate (and the first before that, I believe). It is kind of like the desire amongst some Regionalists to have an all Regional Senate, a desire which I have always disagreed with on many of the same grounds you have proposed this amendment, ironically.

I don't have a problem with districts by design, my primary problem is that you want to use them as a replacement for Regional Senate seats. I like ensuring that each region has atleast one vote in the Senate and the At-Large seats do enough in my opinion that each region can elect "the candidates of their choice" to enough of an extent to ensure that they can determine a proportion of the Senate at or near their proportion of the population. Districts would end the direct connection to the regions for the Class A Senate seat and run the risk that a region could end up completely silenced.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Essentially, this amendment does change the boundaries of the regions because it splits how the citizens are represented.  Senators are accustomed to representing their entire regions, not select portions of it.  By mandating that a region divides itself for representation purposes, we would be infringing on regions' rights.

Well, 5 members of our body are accustomed to representing the entire nation, not just one Region   I have no idea how this is an "infringement on regions' rights", however; this ensures all regions are treated equally.  Or, if it is, why is it more important for regions to have a right to be represented by a single Senate member than it is for citizens to be given equal representation by elected officials?

Because we can't support a bicameral legislature, so we are essentially doing the work of both, within the same body.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A motion to table has been entered and a second has been filed. A 48 hour vote is now open on the motion to table, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[ilikeverin]

Nope

Essentially, this amendment does change the boundaries of the regions because it splits how the citizens are represented.  Senators are accustomed to representing their entire regions, not select portions of it.  By mandating that a region divides itself for representation purposes, we would be infringing on regions' rights.

Well, 5 members of our body are accustomed to representing the entire nation, not just one Region   I have no idea how this is an "infringement on regions' rights", however; this ensures all regions are treated equally.  Or, if it is, why is it more important for regions to have a right to be represented by a single Senate member than it is for citizens to be given equal representation by elected officials?

Because we can't support a bicameral legislature, so we are essentially doing the work of both, within the same body.

But it's manifestly the case that the Senate in the book series "Real Life" is unfairly skewed towards smaller states; I don't see why our similarity to that book series should be considered a good thing in this respect.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is the whole idea behind the RL US Senate though. I frankly don't see the problem with it. The problem with the Senate is the people in it, which is true for the US House, Governorships, State Legislatures and a slew of other offices. A problem Atlasia doesn't share with the RL US. I think Franklin and Madison were right when they come up with that structure in 1787, to balance the forces of institution against popular will. Even post 17th Amendment, this notion is still in place. If anything, the 17th Amendment has strengthened it because now the Senators represent the state rather than a gov't institution within that state.

Somehow, I get the picture you reject such Burkean logic? Just call it a hunch.


Part of me doesn't want to table this either. I wanted to have lots of fun fighting against ILV here.

[ilikeverin]

That is the whole idea behind the RL US Senate though. I frankly don't see the problem with it. The problem with the Senate is the people in it, which is true for the US House, Governorships, State Legislatures and a slew of other offices. A problem Atlasia doesn't share with the RL US. I think Franklin and Madison were right when they come up with that structure in 1787, to balance the forces of institution against popular will. Even post 17th Amendment, this notion is still in place. If anything, the 17th Amendment has strengthened it because now the Senators represent the state rather than a gov't institution within that state.

Somehow, I get the picture you reject such Burkean logic? Just call it a hunch.

Well, yeah; I think it's entirely unfair that a Wyomingite be valued, in the eyes of the US Constitution, at 66.3 times the worth of a Californian.  But perhaps that's just me

(I mean, there are lots of other problems with the Senate, of course, not in the least the present supermajority requirement for passage.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At the moment, it doesn't seem like it would be a fair fight!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is the whole idea behind the RL US Senate though. I frankly don't see the problem with it. The problem with the Senate is the people in it, which is true for the US House, Governorships, State Legislatures and a slew of other offices. A problem Atlasia doesn't share with the RL US. I think Franklin and Madison were right when they come up with that structure in 1787, to balance the forces of institution against popular will. Even post 17th Amendment, this notion is still in place. If anything, the 17th Amendment has strengthened it because now the Senators represent the state rather than a gov't institution within that state.

Somehow, I get the picture you reject such Burkean logic? Just call it a hunch.

Well, yeah; I think it's entirely unfair that a Wyomingite be valued, in the eyes of the US Constitution, at 66.3 times the worth of a Californian.  But perhaps that's just me

(I mean, there are lots of other problems with the Senate, of course, not in the least the present supermajority requirement for passage.)

If the purpose of the Senate were to represent the "the people", rather than "the states", then you would be right.

The supermajority requirement is only an issue because of the people there who invoke it so often.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Aye

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Sbane]

Aye

[LastVoter]

Aye

[tpfkaw]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Motion to Table the Equal Representation Amendment:

Aye (5): Ben, sbane, Scott, Seatown, and Wormyguy
Nay (2): ILV and NC Yankee
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (3): AndrewPA, Clarence, and TJ in Cleve

With 2/3rds of those voting having voted in the affirmative, the bill has been tabled.

[ilikeverin]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

I listened, I just disagreed.

It was a clever tactical move, but the whole problem is that most of it concerned arguements made back when the Class b seats were switched from Districts to At-Large.

What would have been more effective would be to discuss why the class a seats were switched from regional seats to districts back in the 2nd Senate and then reversed in the 7th (or was it the 8th?).

[ilikeverin]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

I listened, I just disagreed.

It was a clever tactical move, but the whole problem is that most of it concerned arguements made back when the Class b seats were switched from Districts to At-Large.

What would have been more effective would be to discuss why the class a seats were switched from regional seats to districts back in the 2nd Senate and then reversed in the 7th (or was it the 8th?).

They were?  I don't even recall that.

Ah, apparently that had to do with the successive adoptions of the First and Second Constitutions.

Well, this summer, I do have a bit more time on my hands, perhaps I could be a historian

EDIT: Unfortunately, the second ConCon was held off-board on a site that has since died, so...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

I listened, I just disagreed.

It was a clever tactical move, but the whole problem is that most of it concerned arguements made back when the Class b seats were switched from Districts to At-Large.

What would have been more effective would be to discuss why the class a seats were switched from regional seats to districts back in the 2nd Senate and then reversed in the 7th (or was it the 8th?).

They were?  I don't even recall that.

Ah, apparently that had to do with the successive adoptions of the First and Second Constitutions.

Well, this summer, I do have a bit more time on my hands, perhaps I could be a historian

EDIT: Unfortunately, the second ConCon was held off-board on a site that has since died, so...

It says so on the Senate History page of the Wiki.

No one wonder I couldn't find a link to the convention. Whose brilliant idea was that?

[LastVoter]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

It's not equality. Equality would be abolition of regions electing representatives in Federal government.

[ilikeverin]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

It's not equality. Equality would be abolition of regions electing representatives in Federal government.

Well, of course!  But no one would support that.  Except for you and me, apparently.

EDIT: Wait a sec, actually, now that I read what you actually said (I at first read it as just "abolishing regions"), that's exactly what I was proposing...