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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

As I'll be at a wedding tomorrow, I'm going to bring this amendment to a vote now.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 24-hour vote (although it'll likely stay open longer than that):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Doesn't the clause "... this section shall not be changed before January 1, 2014" have more of a symbolic rather than an actual impact anyway? Even if this clause becomes part of the constitution, a new constitutional amendment which would remove this clause could be introduced and voted on by the people any time.

My interpretation of that is that since it's in that section, even that clause can't be removed.  If I'm wrong, it'll make for an interesting court case.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 2, and the NAYs are 0, with 1 ABSTAIN, and 2 not voting.  The AYEs have it and the amendment is agreed to.  Debate on the amended bill will now continue.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Seeing no further debate, the bill (in the form written below) is brought to a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

NAY

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And I'll point out - the fact that we have yet to hold a vote where all 5 of our members vote is precisely why I'm opposed to this amendment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 0.  The AYEs have it, and the amendment is passed.  The amendment is now passed onto the people for a vote.