IDS2: IDS Constitutional Amendment Policy (DEBATING)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Could we vote on it like we did the flag with PR-SVT?

I think we can do that if the Emperor is okay with it.

[Dereich]

I don't think PR-STV would be necessary with only two options. I'm fine with a vote though.

[Velasco]

     I agree that controversy is good, for the sake of spurring discussion. I must also insist on my support of the supermajority. I think I've already made my position clear on the matter.

      As for the fears, a threshold of Legislature + 50% of the public makes it possible to pass partisan amendments in bitterly contested scenarios. Considering there was one point when Labor had close to parity in this region, having such lax ratification standards would have left us prone to whatever action at that point in time. One bad month of bad turnout for the Federalists and you could have passed any amendment you wanted. The same would apply in reverse, naturally.

These are the risks of democracy. However, they are preferable to killing debate, controversy and -above all- interest and activity. Usually, bitter and contested scenarios drive to higher turnouts. We can make coincide referendums with regional elections, as you suggested above, to prevent bad turnouts. There's no reason to adopt a supermajority which might kill any chance of debate and/or alternative proposals. 

[Enderman]

How about a 55% compromise? Not too much and not to little....

[Associate Justice PiT]

    I agree that controversy is good, for the sake of spurring discussion. I must also insist on my support of the supermajority. I think I've already made my position clear on the matter.

      As for the fears, a threshold of Legislature + 50% of the public makes it possible to pass partisan amendments in bitterly contested scenarios. Considering there was one point when Labor had close to parity in this region, having such lax ratification standards would have left us prone to whatever action at that point in time. One bad month of bad turnout for the Federalists and you could have passed any amendment you wanted. The same would apply in reverse, naturally.

These are the risks of democracy. However, they are preferable to killing debate, controversy and -above all- interest and activity. Usually, bitter and contested scenarios drive to higher turnouts. We can make coincide referendums with regional elections, as you suggested above, to prevent bad turnouts. There's no reason to adopt a supermajority which might kill any chance of debate and/or alternative proposals.  

     The supposition that a supermajority would kill debate has no basis in the region's history. The creation of the Legislature and the abolition of the death penalty both attained majorities but not supermajorities. In both cases this begat future amendments, which eventually succeeded. Not to mention the Imperial nomenclature passed with a supermajority and there have still been serious attempts to repeal it. Also, look at the federal government and how many times some have tried to reduce the requirements to pass amendments there. This idea that supermajority requirements has a negative impact on debate and activity is simply not credible.

     Furthermore, it is extremely misleading to talk about "adopting" a supermajority. The supermajority is the law of the land and there is no good reason to change it. That is really what this boils down to, ultimately.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Right now, I'd prefer that a supermajority be required to pass amendments, provided that the referendums coincide with the regional elections.  The Constitution is suppose to be a difficult thing to change, but my concern is that if we place a threshold for turnout, no amendment will ever pass because turnout is always lower for regional elections than it is for federal elections.  Even having them coincide with federal elections might make it close to impossible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Right now, I'd prefer that a supermajority be required to pass amendments, provided that the referendums coincide with the regional elections.  The Constitution is suppose to be a difficult thing to change, but my concern is that if we place a threshold for turnout, no amendment will ever pass because turnout is always lower for regional elections than it is for federal elections.  Even having them coincide with federal elections might make it close to impossible.

     I think the lackluster turnout for federal referenda has indicated that voting on a particular issue is not a reliable turnout driver. I would support an amendment to make the amendment referendum coincide with regional elections.

[Dereich]

I'm in favor as well, its more convenient all around.

[Velasco]

OK. It seems that I am in minority. I don't question PIT's knowledge on regional history. I can only judge for what I have seen recently, here and in Atlasia in general. I still think that supermajority may be counterproductive and IRL there are very few equivalents (someone mentioned New Hampshire). In view on the fact that there seems to be certain consensus on the question among the rest of participants, continuing the debate would not be very useful. Before closing the question, I would like to hear the words of the legislators who have not spoken on the last proposal.

[Velasco]

Yes, it would discourage dissenters on a particular question and the loyal opposition in this region on the big issues. I support simple majority + 50% turnout + coincidence of referenda and regional elections. Most of you support supermajority. At this point, I'd accept a compromise solution. In other case, I'd cast a testimonial vote against.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Do we have any amendments to offer at this time?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Bump.

[Dereich]

I will not accept that as friendly, so a vote would be needed

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Velasco didn't indicate whether that was an amendment he was proposing.  That's why we never voted on it.  If Velasco says it is, we'll vote on it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I don't like this amendment either, in memory of the disaster the Northeast faced when it required a quorum. With that said, I don't know how useful it is to continue embroiling myself in a debate here. I think I have made all of my points, so the Legislature will ultimately have to decide what it wants. I'll keep reading the thread, so if anyone has concerns or issues that they would like clarified, I will be here to do so.

[Velasco]

Velasco didn't indicate whether that was an amendment he was proposing.  That's why we never voted on it.  If Velasco says it is, we'll vote on it.

Sorry for the delay. If we are going to vote between two options, I guess I'd have to submit my proposal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By the way, the text refers to votes cast, including abstentions and null ballots.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why don't we just vote on one amendment since there are only two choices?

[Enderman]

How about this, lets not do 2/3rds, but 60%. Could that be better than 2/3?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I will bring Velasco's amendment to a vote.  We're not getting very far with this conversation, obviously.


Members, a vote is now open on Legislator Velasco's amendment.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.  This vote will end in 48 hours or when all members have voted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Enderman]

I'm not really enthralled with Velasco's amendment, but might as well:

AYE

[Velasco]

Aye.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sorry - forgot about this one.

The amendment is adopted.

Since there hasn't been any conversation on this in three days, are we ready for a final vote?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Members, a final vote is now open.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.  This vote will expire in 48 hours or when all members have voted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.