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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ZuWo]

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.

[ZuWo]

A question for JCL: why did you vote after the vote expired?  Did you even?  That's why I didn't vote.

You can probably still vote. Note what Inks said when he opened the vote:

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.

[ZuWo]

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.

[ZuWo]

For the record, a public vote on the amendment will start next Thursday.