Regions?

[Demrepdan]

As I have stated in another thread......the current plans for Regions and Districts WERE voted on.....thats very true....a majority of people wanted it...but it doesn't matter. The maps are unconstitutional. Those maps were made BEFORE we had the idea of having both Regions AND Districts....and also HOW they should be set.....the rules for them as such....(such as 10 states per region....and no more than 2 voters than another district).....those rules were set after everyone made their maps....then people voted on them. But then here comes the constitution....with this..."4th amendment"....that contradicts everyone's maps.

So I know many people may not like this idea....but I suggest starting from scratch. Everyone (if they wish) my present Regions and District maps....but they must be constitutional....and then we will vote on them. I know many of you won't like this idea...so I don't even know why I brought it up.

And I WOULD attempt to take charge...and ENFORCE this idea of "starting over again" and working quickly to find a swift resolution....but I fear of being accused of somehow "playing the political ticket." People will probably now tell me...."why should we follow the constituion that has in essence be ratified?.....you just want to start over so you can have what YOU want... and.....blah blah blee bloo bleep"....as I was accused with the Preverential voting idea.

So....you fight over what to do....to start over.....or accept these unconstitutional maps.....with 14 people in one district....and 8 in another. I would suggest starting over...but that's merely a suggestion.

[Demrepdan]

We didn't vote for the version of the 4th amendment that was in your constitution!  We voted for a version of the 4th amendment that included regions without 10 state in each of them.   So you can't say the maps we voted on are unconstitutional since we never ratified anything that says they have to have ten states.

Then what the hell is this?!

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 maps were voted on...sure....but according to Lewis, the Amendment (the wording of the amendment) did pass. Where are you getting your sources?

I can't understand why people are so worked up about the fact that the regions don't have ten states.   WHO CARES!!???  We voted in favor of some maps, let it be done.  Nym and Harry, the actual elected members of the administration, say the maps are fine as they were voted on.  LET'S MOVE ON.

Yeah....WHO CARES IF THEY HAVE 10 STATES! But....you already said this...and you NEVER.........NEVER address the main issue.....the issue that has me most distrought anyway.....and that is simply.....WHAT ABOUT THE DAMN DISTRICTS? 14 in one....8 in the other. And you're fine with that...ALL OF YOU ARE FINE WITH THAT?! You're fools....all of ya....

DepRepDan, why do you persist, against the wished of the president and vice-president who appointed you, to continue to create chaos where we need some order?  If you have strong feelings, have your cabinet meeting and tell them to Nym and he can decide something if it needs to be decided.  Stop making trouble in the forum.

I'm a maverick that's why. I'm not going to nod and agree with everything this administration says....which (I'm sorry to say this)....has yet to show any true leadership. But that is not all their fault....since we have no LAW! THIS IS ANARCHY...and people are getting away with ANYTHING! And if you view my efforts to correct the many problems at this forum as "making trouble".....then I'm sorry for being a troublemaker. But I'm not going to shut up and put REASON in my little bag....and walk away....I want everyone to have a bit of REASON....and the bag is open...and it's free.....

And besides.....I didn't ENFORCE ANYTHING...I didn't come here saying..."We MUST start over....I DEMAND it!"...I just stated my OPINION...and you ATTACK ME FOR THAT?!?!?!? I guess we can throw out the "First Amendment" in our constitution......

[Demrepdan]

You didn't just voice your opinion, you started vote threads and declared the version of the constitution we passed invalid without any sign of consent from the administration.

Oh oh...I see what it is now....this whole preverential voting thing...because I started a new thread to end confusion..(which in turn created MORE)....then EVERYONE hates me and EVERYONE is against me now. If I was FOR Preferential voting....I wonder what would be the basis of everyone's arguement then.

As I said before....I don't want preferential voting...but I'll accept it if it is passed. I won't even vote for it in this new thread if it  makes you feel better.....OR I could vote FOR it....if you want. Hell....maybe I SHOULD just end it right now....and declare preferential voting passed....because I don't give a damn if it's passed or not.....when evidently others have such strong opinions on the subject.

So lets just say I declare it right now....that preferential voting is passed......and the maps for districts and regions are FINAL. Well......it doesn't matter if they are...you know why? Because YOU...and some others....think the constitution is RATIFIED. SET IN STONE. If that were the case.....then the current version of the constitution would be LAW. Which would mean you don't have preferential voting....and you would also have to accept the maps for regions and districts that are currently in place.

I will NEVER accepted that this constitution is "ratified" when it needs more small...but vital changes. I stated LONG ago that this was NOT the final version of the constitution....and that  small changes had to be made. But regardless of me saying that....people took it upons themselves to rush the ratification.

Even if I shut up about the maps.....and the preferential voting (which I will momentarily....you'll never hear another word out of me)......I STILL wouldn't be silenced about this "ratification" of the constitution. It is NOT ratified. I would think that you (being for Preferential voting) would NOT want it to be ratified....because as I said......that would mean that we couldn't add preferential voting since the constitution is already over with.

I hope everyone understands this....I feel like no one understands...

And what kind of sign of consent do we need from this administration? I'm the one that drafted the constitution....you'd think my consent would be just as good as any other...... I'll agree with the "sign of consent" as far as the preferential voting.....maybe I should have sought their council on that.....(although I DID ask Gustaf......and MAS117 and they approved)......but as far as me saying the constitution is not "ratified"....why would their authority supercede mine?

[Demrepdan]

Mr Secretary, you have yet to address my question. What is being done about the regions?

Don't ask me...... ask NickG....or someone else....I'm washing my hands of this.....unless the President asks me to take any action...

[Demrepdan]

Dan, aren't the amendments actually part of the constitution anyway, they are part of the BIll of Rights and are thus called amendments. Meaning by ratifying the constitution you agree with the amendments as they are part of the original constitution. Which means, if we actually did ratify the constitution (which we didn't) those maps would be unconstitutional and thus could not be used. So if we ratified the constitution, then those maps cannot be used as they contradict it.

Thus the argument of accepting both is flawed.

Lewis specifically set up different votes on the Constitution and the Amendments.  So I think it was obvious to everyone that by voting for the Constitution we were NOT voting for any of the amendments; each of those required a seperate vote in a different thread.  If Dan had intended those parts to be accepted as part of the constitution as a whole, he shouldn't have called them "amendments".

he explained the significance of the names before, to do with the Bill of Rights I think it was, they were part of the original constitution, not amendments in the sense of changes to the constitution.

Yes.....thank you JFK......I explained that LONG ago...that the amendments were NOT to amend the constitution. And I don't see how anyone could think that's what they were for....since we HAD no constitution to AMEND!!

But evidently that's what some thought.....regardless of the fact that I explained they are PART of the constitution....and simply given the name "amendment" for the....look......but no one listened.....no one cared......*sigh*....and now the blame continues to be casted upon me.

[Demrepdan]

Ok everyone.....I need ALL of your help on this one....I need to know EVERY person who is registered at the forum...and from which state they are registered. I need to put it on the record...and also to help in my decision on what final actions to take with the regions and districts.

I WOULD look all the registered voters up myself...but I'm to lazy.

And plus I'm afraid of messing something up.......so.....if I could get a list from SOMEONE....I would appreciate it.

First one to get the list to me....officially has a job in my department......The Deparment of Forum Affairs. So go...QUICKLY! Find me their names!