MA: Amendment to Article III of the Mideast Constitution (Passed)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: JohanusCalvinusLibertas

[Modernity has failed us]

I'm rather on the fence about this amendment. What if there aren't 5 people that run for assembly? The current system seems fine I suppose.

[ZuWo]

Since this is a constitutional amendment my opinion does not matter more than the opinion of any other citizen (I can neither sign nor veto this bill since it will be submitted to a popular vote if it passes the Assembly), but I'd like to stress that I am opposed to the amendment. Indeed, the current system has proved to be just fine because it is flexible and activity-dependent; in times of high activity in the region the current wording of the constitution makes sure that we have five Assemblymembers and in times of low activity the Assembly consists of three members. In my opinion, there could not be a better system to deal with the changing dynamics of Atlasia.

[Modernity has failed us]

Since this is a constitutional amendment my opinion does not matter more than the opinion of any other citizen (I can neither sign nor veto this bill since it will be submitted to a popular vote if it passes the Assembly), but I'd like to stress that I am opposed to the amendment. Indeed, the current system has proved to be just fine because it is flexible and activity-dependent; in times of high activity in the region the current wording of the constitution makes sure that we have five Assemblymembers and in times of low activity the Assembly consists of three members. In my opinion, there could not be a better system to deal with the changing dynamics of Atlasia.

This is really what I'm thinking. The current system adheres to an activity limit as well as allowing for the most competitive elections possible.

[tmthforu94]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155299.0

This is the discussion for the bill last time. It failed because one of our old Assemblymen never showed up to vote, even though he sponsored it.

Here's also a discussion thread, where a slim majority in our region stated they preferred 5 permanent seats to the current setup:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155816.0


I'd just like to state that last session, cutting the Assembly down to 3 was established for the first time, and it was one of the lesser active sessions we've had in quite a while. We fell last session into 3rd place in terms of regional government activity, which is completely unacceptable.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I am strongly opposed to this.  We've gone back and forth between 3 and 5 members, and then we have ONE month where 7 people declare to run and people start running around yelling, "EXPAND THE ASSEMBLY TO FIVE!" using hypothetical arguments that haven't even been reality yet.  If we have a couple months in a row where 5 candidates declare, then I would consider voting for something like this.  Until then, the status quo has worked just fine.

[HappyWarrior]

I'm rather on the fence about this amendment. What if there aren't 5 people that run for assembly? The current system seems fine I suppose.

Exactly, though I'm tempted to support it's passage if only to allow the voters to choose.

[Modernity has failed us]

I'm rather on the fence about this amendment. What if there aren't 5 people that run for assembly? The current system seems fine I suppose.

Exactly, though I'm tempted to support it's passage if only to allow the voters to choose.

^^ This has been my only thought to vote in favour of this bill.

[ZuWo]

I'm rather on the fence about this amendment. What if there aren't 5 people that run for assembly? The current system seems fine I suppose.

Exactly, though I'm tempted to support it's passage if only to allow the voters to choose.

The current wording of the constitution is quite recent. In fact, the Mideast electorate overwhelmingly voted in support of the system we have now just a couple of months ago (the July elections for Assembly were only the second elections with the current system in place!). Thus, it is fair to say that the voters have already chosen and there's no need to submit this proposal to another vote at this point.

[Modernity has failed us]

I'm rather on the fence about this amendment. What if there aren't 5 people that run for assembly? The current system seems fine I suppose.

Exactly, though I'm tempted to support it's passage if only to allow the voters to choose.

The current wording of the constitution is quite recent. In fact, the Mideast electorate overwhelmingly voted in support of the system we have now just a couple of months ago (the July election for Assembly were only the second election with the current system in place!). Thus, it is fair to say that the voters have already chosen and there's no need to submit this proposal to another vote at this point.

Fair enough.

[tmthforu94]

I'm rather on the fence about this amendment. What if there aren't 5 people that run for assembly? The current system seems fine I suppose.

Exactly, though I'm tempted to support it's passage if only to allow the voters to choose.

The current wording of the constitution is quite recent. In fact, the Mideast electorate overwhelmingly voted in support of the system we have now just a couple of months ago (the July election for Assembly were only the second election with the current system in place!). Thus, it is fair to say that the voters have already chosen and there's no need to submit this proposal to another vote at this point.

Fair enough.

Polling even more recent, though, has shown voters divided on which system would be better, with a slim majority actually SUPPORTING this proposal over the current system. With such division, I think the people should be able to make the final call.

[ZuWo]

The assertion that a majority of respondents supported this proposal is inaccurate. In fact, only 5 of 13 Mideast residents who participated in the poll came out in favor of the proposal, with 4 opposing it and 4 who didn't have an opinion. 5 out of 13 people are not a majority.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155816.15

[tmthforu94]

The assertion that a majority of respondents supported this proposal is inaccurate. In fact, only 5 of 13 Mideast residents who participated in the poll came out in favor of the proposal, with 4 opposing it and 4 who didn't have an opinion. 5 out of 13 people are not a majority.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=155816.15

*sigh* This is such a petty argument. 2 points:
1. I stated that a slim majority supported this proposal over the current system, which is a fact. 5 supported this amendment, 4 supported the current setup. I never said a majority of Mideasterners supported this amendment. Don't twist my words.
2. Regardless of which side barely led in the poll, the point is that Mideasterners are very divided on this issue, and I think the best way to settle it would be bringing it to a public vote.

After this, I hope we can get back to a serious discussion on the amendment.

[ZuWo]

Correcting misleading statements is not petty if you're interested in a serious debate of the amendment as you claim you are. It is not sensible to disregard those who voted "don't care"/"undecided" if they make up a third of those who participated in the poll and insinuate that anything close to a majority of people voiced support for this proposal.

Also note that your claim "I never said a majority of Mideasterners supported this amendment" is inaccurate (in fact, the proposal never had a majority in the poll but yet you made the following claim):

I would also like to quickly point out that at this time, a majority of Mideast residents favor this amendment according to the poll "The Porcupine" is doing.

I'd say the fact that not even 40% of the regional citizens who participated in this poll came out in favor of the proposal is not a strong argument to hold yet another vote on this amendment considering that the last vote on the very same question took place only a few months ago.

[tmthforu94]

You were not correcting a misleading statement, as my statement is completely factual. More Mideasterners, according to the poll, support this proposal over the current law. All I am insinuating is that the people are very divided on this issue, and a public vote would be the best option going forward.

Also note that your claim "I never said a majority of Mideasterners supported this amendment" is inaccurate (in fact, the proposal never had a majority in the poll but yet you made the following claim):

I would also like to quickly point out that at this time, a majority of Mideast residents favor this amendment according to the poll "The Porcupine" is doing.

Nice try, but this attack, or "correcting misleading statements", also falls through. You'll notice that I posted that while the vote was ongoing, and at the time of the post, an absolute majority was in favor of the amendment.

Keywords in that statement: at this time

[ZuWo]

You were not correcting a misleading statement, as my statement is completely factual. More Mideasterners, according to the poll, support this proposal over the current law. All I am insinuating is that the people are very divided on this issue, and a public vote would be the best option going forward.

Also note that your claim "I never said a majority of Mideasterners supported this amendment" is inaccurate (in fact, the proposal never had a majority in the poll but yet you made the following claim):

I would also like to quickly point out that at this time, a majority of Mideast residents favor this amendment according to the poll "The Porcupine" is doing.

Nice try, but this attack, or "correcting misleading statements", also falls through. You'll notice that I posted that while the vote was ongoing, and at the time of the post, an absolute majority was in favor of the amendment.

Keywords in that statement: at this time

How is that a majority, even at this time?

I would also like to quickly point out that at this time, a majority of Mideast residents favor this amendment according to the poll "The Porcupine" is doing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are the actual figures.

[tmthforu94]

...

In the quote made several weeks ago you tried to corner me on, I stated that "at this time", an absolute majority supported the bill. Votes that were made after I posted changed the numbers. 

I would be happy to continue this discussion with you in another thread or in a private message. This argument doesn't really have a place anymore in this thread and is just cluttering.

[ZuWo]

...

In the quote made several weeks ago you tried to corner me on, I stated that "at this time", an absolute majority supported the bill. Votes that were made after I posted changed the numbers. 

I would be happy to continue this discussion with you in another thread or in a private message. This argument doesn't really have a place anymore in this thread and is just cluttering.

You made the claim that a "majority of Mideast residents support the proposal" at a time when the results were as they are displayed above (i.e. four people in support, two against, two undecided and one who didn't care). The numbers show very clearly that the proposal never - at no point in time - had the support of a majority. Since you claimed "I never said a majority of Mideasterners supported this amendment" just a few posts ago, I thought it was appropriate to show that this is not the case and you indeed made such a claim. Thus, I think this is very relevant because in debates like these we should try to use accurate numbers and terms even if we try to sway the public in a certain direction. Our citizens deserve to read accurate statements from their elected officials and from those who want to be elected to such an office.

[tmthforu94]

You made the claim that a "majority of Mideast residents support the proposal" at a time when the results were as they are displayed above (i.e. four people in support, two against, two undecided and one who didn't care). The numbers show very clearly that the proposal never - at no point in time - had the support of a majority. Since you claimed "I never said a majority of Mideasterners supported this amendment" just a few posts ago, I thought it was appropriate to show that this is not the case and you indeed made such a claim. Thus, I think this is very relevant because in debates like these we should try to use accurate numbers and terms even if we try to sway the public in a certain direction. Our citizens deserve to read accurate statements from their elected officials and from those who want to be elected to such an office.

The results you displayed came 20 minutes after the post was made, plenty of time for several Mideasterners to vote. I stand by both claims: A)That at the time of that post, a majority of Mideasterners supported this proposal and B) That the poll showed that Mideasterners are divided on this issue, and a public vote would be the best way to go forward.

I'd be happy to discuss the proposed amendment, but I am done discussing this petty argument that is merely just an attempt to paint your potential opponent as a liar.

[tmthforu94]

Trying to divert the discussion back to the pro's and con's of each proposal...

I'd like to point out that with only 3 Assemblymen, under the current setup, 2 Assemblymen could completely run our government, as only 2 votes are needed for a veto override, unless I'm missing something. At the very least, I think an amendment needs introduced requiring a unanimous vote to override a veto if there are only 3 Assemblymen. 2/3's works fine with 5 Assemblymen, as it requires 4 votes.

[ZuWo]

Of course I wouldn't have posted these numbers if they hadn't mirrored the situation at the time you made your post in which you claimed that a majority of the citizens supported the proposal. Even though 20 minutes elapsed between your and my post, the numbers remained unchanged. If you still stand by your claim A) I have to say that you are, in fact, not telling the truth.

As for your second claim (B), I do not deny that the public is somewhat split about the issue. However, to take up the point Inks made earlier in this thread, since we've just had a vote which established the current system and only two elections were held with this system in place, it's way too early to hold another vote on the very same question.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Trying to divert the discussion back to the pro's and con's of each proposal...

I'd like to point out that with only 3 Assemblymen, under the current setup, 2 Assemblymen could completely run our government, as only 2 votes are needed for a veto override, unless I'm missing something. At the very least, I think an amendment needs introduced requiring a unanimous vote to override a veto if there are only 3 Assemblymen. 2/3's works fine with 5 Assemblymen, as it requires 4 votes.

This is a good idea in the event that we only have three assemblymen.


Can we put the bickering aside and examine the merits of the purposed amendment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm rather on the fence about this amendment. What if there aren't 5 people that run for assembly? The current system seems fine I suppose.

Exactly, though I'm tempted to support it's passage if only to allow the voters to choose.

The current wording of the constitution is quite recent. In fact, the Mideast electorate overwhelmingly voted in support of the system we have now just a couple of months ago (the July election for Assembly were only the second election with the current system in place!). Thus, it is fair to say that the voters have already chosen and there's no need to submit this proposal to another vote at this point.

Fair enough.

Polling even more recent, though, has shown voters divided on which system would be better, with a slim majority actually SUPPORTING this proposal over the current system. With such division, I think the people should be able to make the final call.

But when you're making hypothetical claims about good candidates not getting elected in the same thread as the poll, you're confusing people as to what the Constitution actually says.  I question how many citizens actually know what the constituion says regarding Assembly size.

[Modernity has failed us]

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm going to propose an amendment to this amendment.  If those in the Assembly are so confident that this should be done now, instead of waiting a couple sessions to see what happens, then let's put a stop to the flip-flopping between 3 and 5 members:

You must be logged in to read this quote.