Lose ends with the Constitution -IMPORTANT...PLEASE READ

[Gustaf]

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.

Well, Demrepdan did specifically say that he didn't mean to attack you...and he also maybe hadn't understood that you didn't back the maps. But I see your point.

[dunn]

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.

Well, Demrepdan did specifically say that he didn't mean to attack you...and he also maybe hadn't understood that you didn't back the maps. But I see your point.

ok
thanks

[Harry]

THE MAPS ARE FINE LIKE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY CANNOT BE ANY BETTER[/color]

[Fritz]

Another thing that is missing from the Constitution is, on what basis ratification would be accepted.  The U.S. Constitution had a clause requiring 9 of the original 13 states to ratify the Constitution before it went into effect.  A similiar clause is called for here, IMHO, and I don't think a simple majority is sufficient in this case.

[JohnFKennedy]

....
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.

It didn't say in the final ratification vote II that the regions plan that was D&E wasn't a 10 state region, I was under the impression we had already said it had to be a 10 state region and that the different maps were just different ways of dividing up the regions, I only glanced at the maps in that thread before I voted, I did not know about this.

[JohnFKennedy]

THE MAPS ARE FINE LIKE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY CANNOT BE ANY BETTER[/color]

that is why 1 district has 8 people and another has 14?

[12th Doctor]

All I can say is that I put my proposal on the table 3 weeks ago.  This proposal included 10 state regions and ONLY 10 state regions for a reason.  I said that you could manipulate the map how you wanted as long as each region had 10 STATES  This proposal was voted on by all members voting and present.  The language was unambigous and it passed.  So it is therefore set that there should be 10 STATE REGIONS.  Any proposal that was put on the table contrary to that should not have been allowed because it goes against what was originally settled.

[Beet]

We should not have new votes on an issue already decide. We should only have new votes if something was INHERENTLY contradictory. Otherwise we need to move on. Anything else can be dealt with by the Senate.

[12th Doctor]

We should not have new votes on an issue already decide.

Then why is the HELL did you bring up a new vote on my proposal that had already been voted on?

[JohnFKennedy]

We should not have new votes on an issue already decide. We should only have new votes if something was INHERENTLY contradictory. Otherwise we need to move on. Anything else can be dealt with by the Senate.

It was contradictory, we ratified the constitution that said 10 states per region and then we voted for a regions map that didn't fit the description, therefore it was contradictory.

[Demrepdan]

THE MAPS ARE FINE LIKE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY CANNOT BE ANY BETTER[/color]

Yes...........they can......

[Demrepdan]

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.

I'm sorry if I offended you Dunn.....but what everyone doesn't understand....is it doesn't MATTER what the majority think! SURE they voted for those maps! BUT....those maps are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So they shouldn't have been voted on.

If anything.....(and this may take a while)....I would suggest that everyone make as many maps as they want......and they must follow the constitutional guidelines. THEN we vote on those maps....that should all correspond to the rules set in the constitution....

You must remember......all this voting on maps crap......took place a LONG time ago.....even before the constitution was changed to included both Regions and Districts......

[© Tweed the Younger]

[size=48]hi[/size]

[© Tweed the Younger]

yay!  My font worked.

[dunn]

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.

I'm sorry if I offended you Dunn.....but what everyone doesn't understand....is it doesn't MATTER what the majority think! SURE they voted for those maps! BUT....those maps are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So they shouldn't have been voted on.

If anything.....(and this may take a while)....I would suggest that everyone make as many maps as they want......and they must follow the constitutional guidelines. THEN we vote on those maps....that should all correspond to the rules set in the constitution....

You must remember......all this voting on maps crap......took place a LONG time ago.....even before the constitution was changed to included both Regions and Districts......

there was a voting when we ratify rhe constitution
I don't thing the maps are perfect and the districts is bound to changes, I think we should pass the mud terms with this maps and let the senate change them
 

[JohnFKennedy]

Dan, you said before the amendments weren't amendments to the constitution as such, they were part of the original constitution and just called amendments as they are part of the Bill of Rights I think it was. If that is the case, then by ratifying the constitution we could not then choose maps that contradicted that amendment as it was part of the original constitution, so we can't accept that the constitution is ratified and these are the maps to use as that would be contradictory.

[Emsworth]

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.

I'm sorry if I offended you Dunn.....but what everyone doesn't understand....is it doesn't MATTER what the majority think! SURE they voted for those maps! BUT....those maps are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So they shouldn't have been voted on.

If anything.....(and this may take a while)....I would suggest that everyone make as many maps as they want......and they must follow the constitutional guidelines. THEN we vote on those maps....that should all correspond to the rules set in the constitution....

You must remember......all this voting on maps crap......took place a LONG time ago.....even before the constitution was changed to included both Regions and Districts......

The District Map was perfectly constitutional. It should not be overturned.

[JohnFKennedy]

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.

I'm sorry if I offended you Dunn.....but what everyone doesn't understand....is it doesn't MATTER what the majority think! SURE they voted for those maps! BUT....those maps are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So they shouldn't have been voted on.

If anything.....(and this may take a while)....I would suggest that everyone make as many maps as they want......and they must follow the constitutional guidelines. THEN we vote on those maps....that should all correspond to the rules set in the constitution....

You must remember......all this voting on maps crap......took place a LONG time ago.....even before the constitution was changed to included both Regions and Districts......

The District Map was perfectly constitutional. It should not be overturned.

The district maps are supposed to not have a difference in population greater than 2 voters, those do, therefore they aren't constitutional.

[Emsworth]

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.

I'm sorry if I offended you Dunn.....but what everyone doesn't understand....is it doesn't MATTER what the majority think! SURE they voted for those maps! BUT....those maps are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So they shouldn't have been voted on.

If anything.....(and this may take a while)....I would suggest that everyone make as many maps as they want......and they must follow the constitutional guidelines. THEN we vote on those maps....that should all correspond to the rules set in the constitution....

You must remember......all this voting on maps crap......took place a LONG time ago.....even before the constitution was changed to included both Regions and Districts......

The District Map was perfectly constitutional. It should not be overturned.

The district maps are supposed to not have a difference in population greater than 2 voters, those do, therefore they aren't constitutional.

The differences were fine in terms of residents, I believe, at the time of creation. In any event, Demrepdan has yet to do something about the maps, though progress has been made on PV.

[Vasall des Midas]

That district map was created to be as equal as possible in the number of theoretically eligible voters, not registered voters...