Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 03:15:55 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  Lose ends with the Constitution -IMPORTANT...PLEASE READ
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Lose ends with the Constitution -IMPORTANT...PLEASE READ  (Read 3174 times)
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« on: April 02, 2004, 07:58:22 pm »
Ignore

Due to the dispute that has recently been brought about at the forum, I have decided to take action. Many people believe that the Constitution is now SET IN STONE. They are wrong. Although it did ratify, it is not official until I made the last few steps on it AS WELL as making districts and regions set. The Constitution will be made OFFICIAL and "set in stone" when I post it on my website, with the signatures of all those who agreed to sign it.

I have recently heard this dispute over PREFERENTIAL voting, people have said that the constitution is essentially "set in stone" therefore any changes that must be made as far as preferential voting is concerned, must be made in the form of a Constitutional Amendment. This is not so. Let me state again, the constitution is NOT set in stone. If it were, every single word of it would be LAW right now, and if this is the case many of you are BREAKING the law.

How would you be breaking the law? Dunn recently gave his "regions and districts." The current version of the constitution, which many of you BELIEVE to be "set in stone", says that regions must have TEN STATES per region. Dunn has failed to meet this demand. It also says that no district shall have more than 2 forum members than another district. Dunn has one district with 9 members, and another with 14, he failed to meet this demand as well. I am NOT attacking Dunn, I'm simply saying, to those of you who believe the Constitution is "official", that if it were, many of you are preforming unconstitutional acts.

Also, this whole idea of the "6th amendment". Or preferential voting. First of all, let me state that the preferential voting aspect was brought up under the "Ratification Final Vote Part II" thread.  Doesnít this thread contradict the first thread? You just ratified the constitution, so now you're asking people if they like particular amendments and also the idea of preferential voting. But yet, in the OTHER thread, you just supposedly "ratified" the Constitution, thus you CAN'T change any of these things! And you can't have a "6th amendment" without a two-thirds vote from the Senate and a majority vote from forum members in a poll.

As I told the President and several others, if the preferential voting clause is preferred by a majority of you, I will gladly INTEGRATE it into our constitution. There is NO need for a Constitutional amendment, especially since there is no Senate yet, and AGAIN I say to you, the Constitution is NOT SET IN STONE!

I had minor changes to make, and I have now made them. Although they were minor they were VERY important! One of these changes is something requested to me by Lewis, and that is to not have a Governor's term exceed 6 months, that way a RADICAL region won't set their Gubernatorial term to like, 100 years or something. So I changed that, and I also made some small re-wordings at the request of Emsworth. I also removed the Secretary of Treasury since this position literally has NO power, and replaced him with a Secretary of Labor. Who may not have much power, but more so than the Secretary of Treasury would.  And the one change that SUPERCEDES all of these changes, is the "anti-troll" clause.

After the JC Party came to the forum, and "Jesus" started inviting his friends to the forum ONLY to vote for him and join him in his cause, I realized something had to be done. So I added a clause stating that "no one who has attained 18 or more posts and the forum and is an ACTIVE MEMBER of the forum, shall be denied the right to vote." An active member is defined as someone who PARTICIPATES in the forum, and not just comes here to TROLL.

If it were left up to SOME of you, who believe that the CURRENT constitution is "set in stone". Then we would not have this anti-troll clause. And you know what could potentially happen? "Jesus" could invite 30 of his friends from school, to come to the forum and post over and over again about the JC Party, which would not make them an "active member at the forum", and they could get enough support and power to elect themselves into positions of power. And they COULD attain a Senate seat in the Senatorial elections this April. They COULD do it, and why? Because there's nothing saying they can't. If we only had ONE JC Party member of the Senate, that would still be ONE too many. The Senate ratifies constitutional amendments. I'm sure the JC Party Senator would vote AGAINST any amendment that is anti-troll. And also, with a large enough group of trolls at the forum, they could easily cast a secret vote in the poll against the ratification of an "anti-troll" amendment. Therefore, there is ANOTHER aspect of the Constitution I have changed, the poll must be a public vote of the people.

There were some holes in the Constitution, and I tried to fill them up as best as I could. And I stated LONG ago that the revised edition of the Constitution was NOT the FINAL version and still needed some minor changes. Which they have now been made. So I don't know why people were jumping the gun, trying to "illegally ratify" the constitution when they were fully aware of the changes that needed to be made.

Very quickly allow me to address the issue of Regions, districts, and preferential voting. I have made all these changes in the constitution, and it is now NEARLY ready to be set in STONE. However, there are still question marks throughout this document. Questions that are raised over the issue of REGIONS AND DISTRICTS. Are we set on the Regions and Districts? It doesn't seem like we are, if we have Regions with 8 and 11 states, and districts with 14 and 9 members. This must be fixed. Remember, the fourth amendment can be "amended", but it directly effects us all, as to how the Senatorial elections shall be. Remember also, that regions can never change. Accordingly, I shall leave the regions and district portion, or the fourth amendment, blank for now, until we have all agreed.

Now, this whole idea of preferential voting. I won't even CALL it the "6th amendment", and you should know why by now. I have heard arguments from people, that it HAS passed, it HASN'T passed. Some people have said, "Oh, you can't change your vote." Others have said, "I don't understand what preferential voting is and didnít know what I was voting for when I voted but now itís too late." I have heard ALL of this. So, I'm going to step in and take charge of this situation using my departmental executive authority. I will make a thread, that should now currently be on the forum, telling people what preferential voting IS, and asking them to vote YES OR NO on the issue, and that after your vote has been cast you cannot change it. Therefore, if you abstain from voting, well, then you abstain. This should clear ALL of this up, and make it OFFICIAL and end the dispute of preferential voting. IF preferential voting is passed, as stated earlier I will INTEGRATE it into the constitution and NOT make a new amendment.

In conclusion, after we have settled the arguments of the Regions and Districts, and the idea of preferential voting, I shall insert those two items into the constitution, and then PRESENT the FINAL version. Then I will allow a time period for people to add their signature if they haven't already, or take their signature off. After I have posted the FINAL version with all changes, and all SIGNATURES therefore making it OFFICIAL, then finally we will have the constitution set in STONE. Don't worry about the Senatorial elections, I know the constitution says you must declare your candidacy 20 days before. Well, even if we OFFICIALLY pass the constitution 19 days before the Senatorial election, all of you who applied to run for the Senate 20 days before the election shall be accepted as a candidate, even though the constitution was not set when you first announced your candidacy. You have still met all constitutional obligations.  

We should know by the beginning of next week whether or not we have preferential voting.

And I HOPE we will quickly settle the regions and districts dispute.

But remember; All regions must have TEN STATES (and one with 10 states that includes DC)......and all DISTRICT must be EVENLY distributed according to REGISTERED VOTERS! And no district may have more than TWO members than another.

Thank you for your time,
Signed: Secretary of Forum Affairs Demrepdan



« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 08:09:48 pm by Forum Affairs Secretary Demrepdan »Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2004, 08:07:35 pm »
Ignore

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

The Senate filing period ends before your proposed vote does, so it is not possible to have another vote on Senate regions.  Plus hughento's recent poll shows that people don't want another vote on Senate region by a large margin.  

The regions maps has been approved by the members of this forum repeatedly.  It doesn't have exactly 10 states per region.  Tough.  There is nothing that says that is has to....only an Amendment that has already been rejected.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 08:09:46 pm by NickG »Logged
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13767
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2004, 08:10:27 pm »
Ignore

The JCP hasn't harmed anyone. Since when is love a crime?
Logged

Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2004, 08:11:03 pm »
Ignore

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

When was the amendment NOT passed? As far as I am aware...everyone voted FOR amendments 1 through 5.
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2004, 08:12:51 pm »
Ignore



The regions maps has been approved by the members of this forum repeatedly.  It doesn't have exactly 10 states per region.  Tough.  There is nothing that says that is has to....only an Amendment that has already been rejected.

Well.....I don't give a sweet damn if they do have 10 state each....as long as one doesn't have 15....and the other has 7 or something.

The main issue I don't like (and I notice you fail to address) is the DISTRICTS! One has 14.....the other has 9?!?!?

Oh come on.....
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2004, 08:13:36 pm »
Ignore

The JCP hasn't harmed anyone. Since when is love a crime?

You stay out of this.....you little troll vermin....
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13767
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2004, 08:15:19 pm »
Ignore

The JCP hasn't harmed anyone. Since when is love a crime?

You stay out of this.....you little troll vermin....

You are now resorting to name calling? Well, even though you're insulting people, Jesus still loves you.
Logged

Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2004, 08:16:15 pm »
Ignore

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

When was the amendment NOT passed? As far as I am aware...everyone voted FOR amendments 1 through 5.

We were asked which of four versions of Amendment IV we wanted, one of which was the version in your draft (The 10-states plan), another was the set of maps that won the vote that was taken among many possible maps (The "D&E plan").  The D&E plan was preferred by a clear majority of voters over your version of the amendment.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2004, 08:18:27 pm »
Ignore



The regions maps has been approved by the members of this forum repeatedly.  It doesn't have exactly 10 states per region.  Tough.  There is nothing that says that is has to....only an Amendment that has already been rejected.

Well.....I don't give a sweet damn if they do have 10 state each....as long as one doesn't have 15....and the other has 7 or something.

The main issue I don't like (and I notice you fail to address) is the DISTRICTS! One has 14.....the other has 9?!?!?

Oh come on.....

The districts map does need to be changed to balance the populations.  I personally think it should be changed before the Senate elections.  But people seem to want to elect a Senate first using unbalanced districts and have them decide how it should be changed.  That's OK with me...its really not that important.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 08:18:51 pm by NickG »Logged
Emsworth
Lord Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2004, 08:19:52 pm »
Ignore

And I HOPE we will quickly settle the regions and districts dispute.

But remember; All regions must have TEN STATES (and one with 10 states that includes DC)......and all DISTRICT must be EVENLY distributed according to REGISTERED VOTERS! And no district may have more than TWO members than another.
Thank you very much for showing some leadership here! Its about time that somebody stepped in to solve the problems. But that doesn't mean that I agree with you, of course. There was a thread in which regions and districts were voted upon. Lewis' Plan "D" won. Now, because it won, it must be incorporated. However, the two-voter difference rule cannot be applied to it. The rule should apply only at the time of the reapportionment, and not at other times. Otherwise, each time a new voter registers, reapportionment would be required. Therefore, the requirement applies at the time the map is created; and at the time of creation, there was no objection to the map. So, Lewis' Plan D Map, I believe must be included. As soon as a new Senate meets, it can redo that particular map.

The Regions map is an altogether different question. There was never a vote on a particular map to be used for regions, as opposed to districts. In a vote, individuals indicated that Plan E should be used for the regions, but that vote has been controversial. So I am open to the Secretary doing whatever is necessary to fix the problem... BUT, the filing deadline is tomorrow! The vote on the regions cannot possibly be held before tomorrow. So, I leave it to the Secretary to determine a solution, for that is why we have such officers.

To reiterate: Lewis's Plan D should be used for Districts. I am open to suggestions from the Secretary on the Regions plan.
Logged
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2004, 08:20:34 pm »
Ignore

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

When was the amendment NOT passed? As far as I am aware...everyone voted FOR amendments 1 through 5.

We were asked which of four versions of Amendment IV we wanted, one of which was the version in your draft (The 10-states plan), another was the set of maps that won the vote that was taken among many possible maps (The "D&E plan").  The D&E plan was preferred by a clear majority of voters over your version of the amendment.

I was under the impression that just the STATES themselves were subject to change....not the whole amendment. I was fully aware (even when I was writting it) that those pretty little maps in the constitution were not going to last....(those were Supersoulty's maps of course.....not mine)......but I never knew the whole amendment went out the window. And for reasons no one has yet explained to me.
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2004, 08:23:27 pm »
Ignore

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

When was the amendment NOT passed? As far as I am aware...everyone voted FOR amendments 1 through 5.

We were asked which of four versions of Amendment IV we wanted, one of which was the version in your draft (The 10-states plan), another was the set of maps that won the vote that was taken among many possible maps (The "D&E plan").  The D&E plan was preferred by a clear majority of voters over your version of the amendment.

I was under the impression that just the STATES themselves were subject to change....not the whole amendment. I was fully aware (even when I was writting it) that those pretty little maps in the constitution were not going to last....(those were Supersoulty's maps of course.....not mine)......but I never knew the whole amendment went out the window. And for reasons no one has yet explained to me.


We can all admit this wasn't very clear.  But people voted for a map that didn't have 10-state regions.  I think we can infer that they we thus voting NOT to include the clause in the amendment that required 10-state regions.  It just wouldn't make sense otherwise.
Logged
Emsworth
Lord Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2004, 08:24:01 pm »
Ignore

I was under the impression that just the STATES themselves were subject to change....not the whole amendment. I was fully aware (even when I was writting it) that those pretty little maps in the constitution were not going to last....(those were Supersoulty's maps of course.....not mine)......but I never knew the whole amendment went out the window. And for reasons no one has yet explained to me.
I am very sorry to say that you must take responsibility for this problem. By creating "Amendments" in the original constitution, you confused various people. The vote was set up on the basis that the Constitution was one body of work, while the Amendments were another.
Logged
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2004, 08:41:02 pm »
Ignore

I was under the impression that just the STATES themselves were subject to change....not the whole amendment. I was fully aware (even when I was writting it) that those pretty little maps in the constitution were not going to last....(those were Supersoulty's maps of course.....not mine)......but I never knew the whole amendment went out the window. And for reasons no one has yet explained to me.
I am very sorry to say that you must take responsibility for this problem. By creating "Amendments" in the original constitution, you confused various people. The vote was set up on the basis that the Constitution was one body of work, while the Amendments were another.

I know it confused some people.....and I can't figure out WHY....but....oh well. I thought I made it clear earlier...that the amendments WERE part of the constitution. The ONLY reason I did NOT inculde  them in the BODY of the constitution....was simply.....for...."fun". I don't know what else to tell you. I wanted to have a "Bill of Rights" to mimic the U.S. Constitution. And I didn't want to right 10 amendments.....so instead I wrote 5. They are PART of the constitution...they are given the name "amendment" just for the hell and fun of it.

And besides...if we took OUT all of those "amendments" right now....I assure you the Senate when they are in session...would never push the "First Amendment"....because.....we don't really need it. It was for FUN. I thought the Second Amendment was necessary......as was the third....so we can determine what to do with those who break the law. And the fifth was just to tell everyone that you won't feel left out of this process. Because I'm sure new members who come here will feel bad because they're not in a posititon of power. The 5th amendment may be REDUNDANT....because I tried to make elections as FAIR as I could....in the MAIN body.

But again....I guess it's too late to explain now....even though I thought I did before.....but......the Amendments are not REALLY "amendments". They just given that title for fun. The first TRUE amendment will be the 6th amendment.....whatever that shall be.

But anyway.......Emsworth....I must ask you for a favor.

First of all.....as I've said....I have within my possession the FINAL draft of the Constitution....to be unveiled soon...but not too soon. Evidently....everyone hates the "Fourth Amendment".....so....I would like you to re-write the amendment since everyone doesn't want it. Re-write it the way people want it.....and include the regions and districts and their respective states within.

I would hope that you wouldn't change the "a district can not have 2 members more than another district" clause. In my humble opinon....I think that is PARAMOUNT. If people don't want the TEN STATES per region rule....then fine....to hell with it.

Another thing I would like for you to write for me.....is the preferential voting CLAUSE within Article V.............IF.......IF It passes.

The fate of the constitution is now in your hands. I trust you to do a fine job.....and I hope you'll accept my offer.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 08:44:32 pm by Forum Affairs Secretary Demrepdan »Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
RG Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5584
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2004, 08:43:32 pm »
Ignore

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

The Senate filing period ends before your proposed vote does, so it is not possible to have another vote on Senate regions.  Plus hughento's recent poll shows that people don't want another vote on Senate region by a large margin.  

The regions maps has been approved by the members of this forum repeatedly.  It doesn't have exactly 10 states per region.  Tough.  There is nothing that says that is has to....only an Amendment that has already been rejected.

Actually, the Amendment did pass, and I quote:

On the Fourth Amendment, there were 9 first preference votes for Plan C, 6 first preference votes for Plan A, 1 first preference vote for Plan B, 6 abstentions and and one ballot that I have to reject because it does not state a first preference (Demrepdan's). I hereby declare Plan C and the Amendment to have passed.


The Amendment passed, but the map which passed contradicts the amendment.

Denrepdan, I really do appreciate your take-charge attitude here, it is sorely needed.  But being the stickler for procedural detail that I am, I most express my opinion that the vote on the UNFINISHED version of the Constitution should have never taken place.  Of course people think it is "set in stone": they voted on it!!!  I really strongly feel that an official vote needs to be taken on the COMPLETE, FINAL VERSION of the Constitution.  The previous vote was meaningless, things are being changed that were not voted upon.  For example, the term limit for Governors- that has not been mentioned anywhere in the voting procedure for this Constitution, now you are going to add it.

Please, once the final version of the Constitution is available, submit IT for a vote.  If we are going to do this, let's do it right.

JLD
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 08:46:50 pm by JLD »Logged

Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2004, 08:46:33 pm »
Ignore

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

The Senate filing period ends before your proposed vote does, so it is not possible to have another vote on Senate regions.  Plus hughento's recent poll shows that people don't want another vote on Senate region by a large margin.  

The regions maps has been approved by the members of this forum repeatedly.  It doesn't have exactly 10 states per region.  Tough.  There is nothing that says that is has to....only an Amendment that has already been rejected.

Actually, the Amenment did pass, and I quote:

On the Fourth Amendment, there were 9 first preference votes for Plan C, 6 first preference votes for Plan A, 1 first preference vote for Plan B, 6 abstentions and and one ballot that I have to reject because it does not state a first preference (Demrepdan's). I hereby declare Plan C and the Amendment to have passed.

HA!! It did pass!! I thought it did....
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 08:58:00 pm by Forum Affairs Secretary Demrepdan »Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2004, 09:01:30 pm »
Ignore

Denrepdan, I really do appreciate your take-charge attitude here, it is sorely needed.  But being the stickler for procedural detail that I am, I most express my opinion that the vote on the UNFINISHED version of the Constitution should have never taken place.  Of course people think it is "set in stone": they voted on it!!!  I really strongly feel that an official vote needs to be taken on the COMPLETE, FINAL VERSION of the Constitution.  The previous vote was meaningless, things are being changed that were not voted upon.  For example, the term limit for Governors- that has not been mentioned anywhere in the voting procedure for this Constitution, now you are going to add it.

Please, once the final version of the Constitution is available, submit IT for a vote.  If we are going to do this, let's do it right.

JLD


Thank you for supporting my efforts to have a TRUE ratification of the FINAL constitution.
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Emsworth
Lord Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2004, 09:09:47 pm »
Ignore

But anyway.......Emsworth....I must ask you for a favor.

First of all.....as I've said....I have within my possession the FINAL draft of the Constitution....to be unveiled soon...but not too soon. Evidently....everyone hates the "Fourth Amendment".....so....I would like you to re-write the amendment since everyone doesn't want it. Re-write it the way people want it.....and include the regions and districts and their respective states within.
I understand the reason for which the Amendments were so named. It did cause confusion for some people, while others understood it, so I don't blame you at all. It was just an unfortunate incident.

For the Fourth Amendment, I have the following proposal (which is only tentative, and definitely subject to change upon your suggestions):

Section 1: Each region shall have the right to govern itself and conduct its regional elections as its residents wish. Each Region may establish such elected and appointed positions as it desires, but each region shall have a Governor who shall act as Chief Representative of the Region, fill vacancies for Regional seats in the Senate, and perform such other functions as the Region shall require. The Governor shall be elected by the people of the region for a term of not more than six months (but the Region may provide for unelected individuals to succeed to the office and complete the term in the case of a vacancy.)

No regional law is to contradict the Constitution regarding federal elections or regarding suffrage. Districts are entities constituted solely for the purposes of federal elections and shall therefore not have any local government or authority.

Section 2: Each state and the District of Columbia shall be a part of one of five regions; no state may be divided between different Regions. The Regions shall in all cases be contiguous.  The names of the Regions shall be determined by their members, but until they do so, then the Senate may name the regions.  

The Regions of the United States for the Atlas Forum shall be: [Huh]

Section 3: Each state and the District of Columbia shall be a part of one of five Districts; no state may be divided between different Districts. A census of registered voters shall be administered every ten months which will determine the districts. The Senate may determine and change the boundaries of the districts by a two-thirds vote following each such cenus, but each such change shall take effect at the election following the passage of the change. All districts must be contiguous. At the time of a change in district boundaries, no district's population may exceed another's by more than two voters, [proposed: but this requirement may be waived to the extent necessary to satisfy the rule that no state can be divided between multiple districts and the rule that districts must be contiguous]. Districts shall be numbered from one to five as the Senate shall provide.

Until the Senate provides otherwise, the Districts of the United States for the Atlas Forum shall be: [Huh]
----
Comments?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 09:15:32 pm by Emsworth »Logged
RG Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5584
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2004, 09:27:25 pm »
Ignore

Ten months is extremely excessive.  The population here is rather fluid.  I would suggest every two months, as often as an election occurs.  At the very least, every four.

I do not think the requirement that the change take place after the next election is necessary.  With as I have mentioned, the fluid nature of the population here, it would make more sense for districts to be set immediately for the next election.

I don't think that a 2/3 majority of the Senate is necessary, a simple majority should suffice.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 09:28:36 pm by JLD »Logged

Emsworth
Lord Emsworth
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9081


Political Matrix
E: 8.32, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2004, 09:32:42 pm »
Ignore

Ten months is extremely excessive.  The population here is rather fluid.  I would suggest every two months, as often as an election occurs.  At the very least, every four.
Ten months was originally Demrepdan's proposal. I would agree that, at every Presidential election, a census be held.

Quote
I do not think the requirement that the change take place after the next election is necessary.  With as I have mentioned, the fluid nature of the population here, it would make more sense for districts to be set immediately for the next election.
That's what I intended, actually. The new proposal would not take effect as soon as its passed, it would take effect for the next election. This is so that a Senator's district changes at the end of his or her term, rather than in the middle.

Quote
I don't think that a 2/3 majority of the Senate is necessary, a simple majority should suffice.
Again, this was taken from the Forum Affairs Secretary's draft. This can also be changed.
Logged
RG Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5584
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2004, 09:42:59 pm »
Ignore

I do not think the requirement that the change take place after the next election is necessary.  With as I have mentioned, the fluid nature of the population here, it would make more sense for districts to be set immediately for the next election.
That's what I intended, actually. The new proposal would not take effect as soon as its passed, it would take effect for the next election. This is so that a Senator's district changes at the end of his or her term, rather than in the middle.
Quote
Sorry, I misread you.  I thought it said the change take place after the next election; in fact it says at the next election.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2004, 09:47:05 pm by JLD »Logged

Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26997


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2004, 03:27:02 am »

I am fully behind my fellow Secretary on this. Smiley

And let's make clear that the regions map HAS to be created on some sort of rational basis, since they'll last FOREVER! EITHER 10 states in each, OR some GOOD cultural argument. otherwise, SCRAP any proposition. No matter what some obscure vote with a turnout of 50% says. OK?

And let's keep the 2/3 majorities, to avoid all this from getting too political. I think it's a great idea.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
dunn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3080


P
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2004, 03:59:30 am »
Ignore

Dan my fellow sec
I am offended
I merlly put up the maps that were voted upon (and I personally didn't vote foe them). I accept any vote of the people. some of you do not.
Emsworth, Lewis and myself told you this will happan.
Logged

Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground - TR
Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26997


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2004, 04:07:09 am »

Dan my fellow sec
I am offended
I merlly put up the maps that were voted upon (and I personally didn't vote foe them). I accept any vote of the people. some of you do not.
Emsworth, Lewis and myself told you this will happan.


1. Important votes should be done in a way that no confusion can arise, etc and I'm not sure the 2 contested votes were done this way.

2. It's all messed up... (I had another point 2 originally I think, but I forogt it...)
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
dunn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3080


P
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2004, 04:23:15 am »
Ignore

Dan my fellow sec
I am offended
I merlly put up the maps that were voted upon (and I personally didn't vote foe them). I accept any vote of the people. some of you do not.
Emsworth, Lewis and myself told you this will happan.


1. Important votes should be done in a way that no confusion can arise, etc and I'm not sure the 2 contested votes were done this way.

2. It's all messed up... (I had another point 2 originally I think, but I forogt it...)
true
we said it, they wouldn't listen and  we accepted the majority decision. now when one only posted the voted upon maps (that one didn't vote for) they blame us for that.
Logged

Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground - TR
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines