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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[tmthforu94]

Good idea, Inks. Good consistency.

[tmthforu94]

I urge the Assembly to pass this amendment and give the people the final call on what has been a very dividing issue.

[tmthforu94]

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.

What Inks pointed out here is very important - it shows why the amendment is unnecessary and makes the situation worse.

We just did.