SENATE BILL: Pacific Deconstruction Resolution (Passed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

However, Tyrion, surely as Senator of the Pacific you are aware of the risks associated with such a ironically, "conservative" (in the judicial sense of the word) approach, no? 

[President Tyrion]

However, Tyrion, surely as Senator of the Pacific you are aware of the risks associated with such a ironically, "conservative" (in the judicial sense of the word) approach, no? 

Yeah, but I feel as though it's the only path.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are required to give consent before they can enter into such an agreement, and there is no obligation for us to grant such. It is up to our discretion. As long as it is so, then we have a means to extract what we want. The Constitution doesn't prohibit us from setting conditions on such consent being present.  

The amendment is adopted.

[GAworth]

Although not a fan of the "Midwest, please fix this" strategy. If the two just merged into one region, but the senate drew two senate seats in the Western region (one for the old pacific and one for the old Midwest) would that be easier?

[Хahar 🤔]

Although not a fan of the "Midwest, please fix this" strategy. If the two just merged into one region, but the senate drew two senate seats in the Western region (one for the old pacific and one for the old Midwest) would that be easier?

It would require a constitutional amendment rather than just the approval of the two regions in question, so it would certainly not be easier.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Although not a fan of the "Midwest, please fix this" strategy. If the two just merged into one region, but the senate drew two senate seats in the Western region (one for the old pacific and one for the old Midwest) would that be easier?

I cannot support merging the regions in such fashion as described. The Regions must be equally represented in comparison to each other, or it defeats the purpose.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Tyrion, your thoughts on what I said on Saturday?

[President Tyrion]

Tyrion, your thoughts on what I said on Saturday?

We are required to give consent before they can enter into such an agreement, and there is no obligation for us to grant such. It is up to our discretion. As long as it is so, then we have a means to extract what we want. The Constitution doesn't prohibit us from setting conditions on such consent being present.  

The amendment is adopted.

Well, I'm certainly not averse to some conditions. Did you have something in mind?

[Хahar 🤔]

What conditions would even be necessary? This would require a constitutional amendment to be passed in both regions, which would require consent from both parties, thus rendering GAworth's concerns irrelevant.

[Adam Griffin]

Maybe I'm a bit rusty here, but:

What exactly is the purpose of creating a single government while leaving two regions in existence?

Is "we don't know what to do with an extra Senate seat" the main argument for such an approach?

Isn't the consent process identical whether this proposal is adopted or the regions are merged (the consent of the Senate is required for any change in regional boundaries; the consent of the Regions being changed is required)?

Furthermore (with the exception of the Senate seat), what tangible difference is there between two regions with one government and one region with one government?

I'm supportive of the overall goal here, but am not exactly pleased with this seemingly bubble-gum patchwork solution as-is. More than 60% of Atlasians supported three regions (let alone four) when I left, and I'm only assuming that the Right was able to steer the message away from that and dilute sentiment in the mean time. Still, both regions in question approved the Fix the Regions amendment, so it's pretty obvious where these constituents fall on the broader issue - the Senate should oblige them. The regions certainly haven't become healthier in the interim, as best I can tell, so the argument for full consolidation still stands.

[President Tyrion]

Maybe I'm a bit rusty here, but:

What exactly is the purpose of creating a single government while leaving two regions in existence?

Is "we don't know what to do with an extra Senate seat" the main argument for such an approach?

Isn't the consent process identical whether this proposal is adopted or the regions are merged (the consent of the Senate is required for any change in regional boundaries; the consent of the Regions being changed is required)?

Furthermore (with the exception of the Senate seat), what tangible difference is there between two regions with one government and one region with one government?

I'm supportive of the overall goal here, but am not exactly pleased with this seemingly bubble-gum patchwork solution as-is. More than 60% of Atlasians supported three regions (let alone four) when I left, and I'm only assuming that the Right was able to steer the message away from that and dilute sentiment in the mean time. Still, both regions in question approved the Fix the Regions amendment, so it's pretty obvious where these constituents fall on the broader issue - the Senate should oblige them. The regions certainly haven't become healthier in the interim, as best I can tell.

The reason is quite simple, AG. This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Changing the Senate structure would. It makes no sense to allow the Mideast, IDS, and Northeast, beyond their duly elected representative(s) to the Senate, have much of a say in the maintenance of the two other regions.

[Adam Griffin]

Maybe I'm a bit rusty here, but:

What exactly is the purpose of creating a single government while leaving two regions in existence?

Is "we don't know what to do with an extra Senate seat" the main argument for such an approach?

Isn't the consent process identical whether this proposal is adopted or the regions are merged (the consent of the Senate is required for any change in regional boundaries; the consent of the Regions being changed is required)?

Furthermore (with the exception of the Senate seat), what tangible difference is there between two regions with one government and one region with one government?

I'm supportive of the overall goal here, but am not exactly pleased with this seemingly bubble-gum patchwork solution as-is. More than 60% of Atlasians supported three regions (let alone four) when I left, and I'm only assuming that the Right was able to steer the message away from that and dilute sentiment in the mean time. Still, both regions in question approved the Fix the Regions amendment, so it's pretty obvious where these constituents fall on the broader issue - the Senate should oblige them. The regions certainly haven't become healthier in the interim, as best I can tell.

The reason is quite simple, AG. This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Changing the Senate structure would. It makes no sense to allow the Mideast, IDS, and Northeast, beyond their duly elected representative(s) to the Senate, have much of a say in the maintenance of the two other regions.

Doesn't Article IV Section 2 allow for a clean merger without a constitutional amendment, or was that one of the purposes of the Fix the Regions Amendment?

[Talleyrand]

Maybe I'm a bit rusty here, but:

What exactly is the purpose of creating a single government while leaving two regions in existence?

Is "we don't know what to do with an extra Senate seat" the main argument for such an approach?

Isn't the consent process identical whether this proposal is adopted or the regions are merged (the consent of the Senate is required for any change in regional boundaries; the consent of the Regions being changed is required)?

Furthermore (with the exception of the Senate seat), what tangible difference is there between two regions with one government and one region with one government?

I'm supportive of the overall goal here, but am not exactly pleased with this seemingly bubble-gum patchwork solution as-is. More than 60% of Atlasians supported three regions (let alone four) when I left, and I'm only assuming that the Right was able to steer the message away from that and dilute sentiment in the mean time. Still, both regions in question approved the Fix the Regions amendment, so it's pretty obvious where these constituents fall on the broader issue - the Senate should oblige them. The regions certainly haven't become healthier in the interim, as best I can tell.

The reason is quite simple, AG. This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Changing the Senate structure would. It makes no sense to allow the Mideast, IDS, and Northeast, beyond their duly elected representative(s) to the Senate, have much of a say in the maintenance of the two other regions.

Doesn't Article IV Section 2 allow for a clean merger without a constitutional amendment, or was that one of the purposes of the Fix the Regions Amendment?

Another article (too lazy to look it up) specifies that there be 5 Senators elected from the Regions in the Class A Senate elections. You are technically correct, but this would cause a constitutional crisis if I'm interpreting it correctly.

[Adam Griffin]

Maybe I'm a bit rusty here, but:

What exactly is the purpose of creating a single government while leaving two regions in existence?

Is "we don't know what to do with an extra Senate seat" the main argument for such an approach?

Isn't the consent process identical whether this proposal is adopted or the regions are merged (the consent of the Senate is required for any change in regional boundaries; the consent of the Regions being changed is required)?

Furthermore (with the exception of the Senate seat), what tangible difference is there between two regions with one government and one region with one government?

I'm supportive of the overall goal here, but am not exactly pleased with this seemingly bubble-gum patchwork solution as-is. More than 60% of Atlasians supported three regions (let alone four) when I left, and I'm only assuming that the Right was able to steer the message away from that and dilute sentiment in the mean time. Still, both regions in question approved the Fix the Regions amendment, so it's pretty obvious where these constituents fall on the broader issue - the Senate should oblige them. The regions certainly haven't become healthier in the interim, as best I can tell.

The reason is quite simple, AG. This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Changing the Senate structure would. It makes no sense to allow the Mideast, IDS, and Northeast, beyond their duly elected representative(s) to the Senate, have much of a say in the maintenance of the two other regions.

Doesn't Article IV Section 2 allow for a clean merger without a constitutional amendment, or was that one of the purposes of the Fix the Regions Amendment?

Another article (too lazy to look it up) specifies that there be 5 Senators elected from the Regions in the Class A Senate elections. You are technically correct, but this would cause a constitutional crisis if I'm interpreting it correctly.

I'm all for crises. In reality, though, wouldn't we simply need a constitutional amendment to deal with the extra Senate seat? If this is the case, I see no reason why comprehensive consolidation or reform should be held hostage because of any such worries. I'm guessing the VP might not like there being only 9 Senators for a period of time, but it seems like an issue that Atlasia as a whole could and would address separately and in a timely fashion. If not, then oh well: at least the biggest crisis (weak, ineffective regions) will have been mostly addressed.

[President Tyrion]

Maybe I'm a bit rusty here, but:

What exactly is the purpose of creating a single government while leaving two regions in existence?

Is "we don't know what to do with an extra Senate seat" the main argument for such an approach?

Isn't the consent process identical whether this proposal is adopted or the regions are merged (the consent of the Senate is required for any change in regional boundaries; the consent of the Regions being changed is required)?

Furthermore (with the exception of the Senate seat), what tangible difference is there between two regions with one government and one region with one government?

I'm supportive of the overall goal here, but am not exactly pleased with this seemingly bubble-gum patchwork solution as-is. More than 60% of Atlasians supported three regions (let alone four) when I left, and I'm only assuming that the Right was able to steer the message away from that and dilute sentiment in the mean time. Still, both regions in question approved the Fix the Regions amendment, so it's pretty obvious where these constituents fall on the broader issue - the Senate should oblige them. The regions certainly haven't become healthier in the interim, as best I can tell.

The reason is quite simple, AG. This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Changing the Senate structure would. It makes no sense to allow the Mideast, IDS, and Northeast, beyond their duly elected representative(s) to the Senate, have much of a say in the maintenance of the two other regions.

Doesn't Article IV Section 2 allow for a clean merger without a constitutional amendment, or was that one of the purposes of the Fix the Regions Amendment?

Another article (too lazy to look it up) specifies that there be 5 Senators elected from the Regions in the Class A Senate elections. You are technically correct, but this would cause a constitutional crisis if I'm interpreting it correctly.

I'm all for crises. In reality, though, wouldn't we simply need a constitutional amendment to deal with the extra Senate seat? If this is the case, I see no reason why comprehensive consolidation or reform should be held hostage because of any such worries. I'm guessing the VP might not like there being only 9 Senators for a period of time, but it seems like an issue that Atlasia as a whole could and would address separately and in a timely fashion. If not, then oh well: at least the biggest crisis (weak, ineffective regions) will have been mostly addressed.

Well, preferably, we could keep things going as smoothly for the other regions as possible. I'd definitely support an amendment, but I'm not sure the public will be so supportive.

[Adam Griffin]

Maybe I'm a bit rusty here, but:

What exactly is the purpose of creating a single government while leaving two regions in existence?

Is "we don't know what to do with an extra Senate seat" the main argument for such an approach?

Isn't the consent process identical whether this proposal is adopted or the regions are merged (the consent of the Senate is required for any change in regional boundaries; the consent of the Regions being changed is required)?

Furthermore (with the exception of the Senate seat), what tangible difference is there between two regions with one government and one region with one government?

I'm supportive of the overall goal here, but am not exactly pleased with this seemingly bubble-gum patchwork solution as-is. More than 60% of Atlasians supported three regions (let alone four) when I left, and I'm only assuming that the Right was able to steer the message away from that and dilute sentiment in the mean time. Still, both regions in question approved the Fix the Regions amendment, so it's pretty obvious where these constituents fall on the broader issue - the Senate should oblige them. The regions certainly haven't become healthier in the interim, as best I can tell.

The reason is quite simple, AG. This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Changing the Senate structure would. It makes no sense to allow the Mideast, IDS, and Northeast, beyond their duly elected representative(s) to the Senate, have much of a say in the maintenance of the two other regions.

Doesn't Article IV Section 2 allow for a clean merger without a constitutional amendment, or was that one of the purposes of the Fix the Regions Amendment?

Another article (too lazy to look it up) specifies that there be 5 Senators elected from the Regions in the Class A Senate elections. You are technically correct, but this would cause a constitutional crisis if I'm interpreting it correctly.

I'm all for crises. In reality, though, wouldn't we simply need a constitutional amendment to deal with the extra Senate seat? If this is the case, I see no reason why comprehensive consolidation or reform should be held hostage because of any such worries. I'm guessing the VP might not like there being only 9 Senators for a period of time, but it seems like an issue that Atlasia as a whole could and would address separately and in a timely fashion. If not, then oh well: at least the biggest crisis (weak, ineffective regions) will have been mostly addressed.

Well, preferably, we could keep things going as smoothly for the other regions as possible. I'd definitely support an amendment, but I'm not sure the public will be so supportive.

I mean, in reality it wouldn't be a big deal and shouldn't affect actual day-to-day governance in the slightest, whether that pertains to the federal government or the regions. The worst thing that could happen is that Yankee might have a conniption fit over the discrepancy. In terms of functionality, it'd basically be like having one (maybe two?) vacant Senate seat until the public dealt with the issue via amendment. Since the hardest part of this vis a vis public opinion (merging the two regions) doesn't require its consent, I feel that the country-at-large would move quickly to ensure that full representation was restored in the aftermath. Either that, or we could just get rid of the Senate seat and amend a bunch of other stuff relating to VP powers and the like (obviously, that would be much more complicated).

[DemPGH]

This "crisis" is why the best fix is to maintain the federal structure and simply allow the two bedeviled regions to just share a government. If we can agree to downsize to three regions later, then the Senate and federal structure can be dealt with in faith at that point.

Or, if you downsized to four regions, you could have 4 regional seats plus 6 at large. Why not?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I feel that the country-at-large would move quickly to ensure that full representation was restored in the aftermath.

How?

Consolidation had 60%+ support and failed taking onyl about 39% in the overal vote count The Duke Plan had 48% in the polls. What makes you think that the actual consolidation was the harder part?

Either that, or we could just get rid of the Senate seat and amend a bunch of other stuff relating to VP powers and the like (obviously, that would be much more complicated).

Lets see 4 Regional Senate seats and Five At-Large seats. Something doesn't add up here and it isn't just the loss of an even Senate numbers wise.

Also amend the VP how?  

Just leaving this to be "quickly" settled will ensure a inbalanced Senate for a long time to come and I won't stand for it even in the interim, more or less long term.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This "crisis" is why the best fix is to maintain the federal structure and simply allow the two bedeviled regions to just share a government. If we can agree to downsize to three regions later, then the Senate and federal structure can be dealt with in faith at that point.

Or, if you downsized to four regions, you could have 4 regional seats plus 6 at large. Why not?

Because a Senate that doesn't balance regional and national interest is a non-starter. You would have a better chance an eight person Senate or a bicameral plan, for an imbalanced one will surely fail.

[Fritz]

Why would the Midwest and Pacific regions want to give up one of their senate seats?  That would be like a state in the USA voluntarily giving up one of its reps in Congress when it wasn't required to do so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Indeed, this is all rather ridiculous. Provided we maintain the seperate entities (albeit with their joint regional governments), we can fairly maintain equal represenation in the Senate in accordance with the One Region-One Regional Senator principle and equal numbers to the At-Large seats. In short, we can avoid touching the Senate entirely.

I really don't know why a desire for simplicity or whatnot is seeking to motivate what is presently a simple measure to move towards greater complexity and great divisiveness.

[Adam Griffin]

I feel that the country-at-large would move quickly to ensure that full representation was restored in the aftermath.

How?

Consolidation had 60%+ support and failed taking onyl about 39% in the overal vote count The Duke Plan had 48% in the polls. What makes you think that the actual consolidation was the harder part?

In this case, do you think adding back the 10th Senate seat would be a bigger deal than consolidation has proved to be? It did take a long time to get the Fix the Regions bill through the Senate, but I'm not sure I ever believed that it'd be the hardest part.  I'd argue sh**tty timing of the voting booths and a lack of GOTV, coupled with the ever-present reality of how the Right is geographically situated in the game was what created the poor results at the polls. Regions with higher turnout reflected their partisan sentiments (2 passed, 1 failed), while it failed in both regions with what I'd consider lower turnout. The left skews younger on here; more people on vacation/preparing to go back to school. It's not like I've caught up on everything yet, but weak messaging in the weeks leading up to it probably played a factor as well.

Lets see 4 Regional Senate seats and Five At-Large seats. Something doesn't add up here and it isn't just the loss of an even Senate numbers wise.

Also amend the VP how?

And? If it came down to correcting the issue by formally adding a 6th at-large seat or eliminating the 10th seat altogether, I have full faith and confidence that the Senate can adequately handle all the necessary tasks of "10 9" and/or "5 6". The Fix the Regions amendment was magnitudes more complex in terms of constitutional and political juggling.

Oh, and I was vaguely referring to how maybe we could give the VP another ceremonial power in the event of a 9-member Senate, since the office's tie-breaker power would be substantially diluted.

Just leaving this to be "quickly" settled will ensure a inbalanced Senate for a long time to come and I won't stand for it even in the interim, more or less long term.

Are you saying that the Right would play political games with any such necessary amendment? I could be totally mistaken, but I don't think there'd be any significant portion of the Left that would vote against a needed measure like this, so it'd certainly pass in the three two more leftist regions. Would the Mideast and/or the IDS decide to spitefully veto the restoration of a 10th Senate seat as a sixth at-large seat (since that seems like the more preferred solution for expedient results)? I certainly hope that wouldn't be the case. If these two regions wish to merge, then they should be allowed to do so via the whole notion of regional rights, rather than be given a bandage solution that apparently is the only way to handle problems these days due to the Right being so relatively powerful.

Indeed, this is all rather ridiculous. Provided we maintain the seperate entities (albeit with their joint regional governments), we can fairly maintain equal represenation in the Senate in accordance with the One Region-One Regional Senator principle and equal numbers to the At-Large seats. In short, we can avoid touching the Senate entirely.

I really don't know why a desire for simplicity or whatnot is seeking to motivate what is presently a simple measure to move towards greater complexity and great divisiveness.

Basically so as to not half-ass the process. The whole "it's 2 regions but now it's 1 region but it's really 2 regions" plan seems oddly reminiscent of the Atlasian-Canadian Common Market Agreement. Hell, the main motivation for me to see that one through was for people to be able to live in Canada, but apparently we still can't even get that enforced because of all the "careful considerations" that went into it. I'd hate for this to end up like that. How sure can we be that it won't? It only takes one court case to find out, especially when there are vague concepts like "accord" (we could at least use the wording from the Article I Section 7 clause, which I could argue is not even applicable here). The Senate has the power itself to merge these regions if they so choose and then give the public the ability to restore its full representation nationally. People residing in every other region would automatically have more representation by virtue of 10% of it not being confined to a region (6 at-large versus 5 at-large), while the people in each region wouldn't lose any representation as individuals (they had 1 regional Senator, they still have 1 regional Senator).

Why would the Midwest and Pacific regions want to give up one of their senate seats?  That would be like a state in the USA voluntarily giving up one of its reps in Congress when it wasn't required to do so.

Like I said above: as individuals, they wouldn't be giving up anything. Each citizen would have the same number of regional Senators representing them in the Senate, while also being able to all have a say in 70% of the Senators elected, versus 60% today (5 at-large + 1 regional).

I think there is an argument that could be made revolving around these two regions being allowed to form a unified government while retaining two regional Senators.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I feel that the country-at-large would move quickly to ensure that full representation was restored in the aftermath.

How?

Consolidation had 60%+ support and failed taking onyl about 39% in the overal vote count The Duke Plan had 48% in the polls. What makes you think that the actual consolidation was the harder part?

In this case, do you think adding back the 10th Senate seat would be a bigger deal than consolidation has proved to be? It did take a long time to get the Fix the Regions bill through the Senate, but I'm not sure I ever believed that it'd be the hardest part.  I'd argue sh**tty timing of the voting booths and a lack of GOTV, coupled with the ever-present reality of how the Right is geographically situated in the game was what created the poor results at the polls. Regions with higher turnout reflected their partisan sentiments (2 passed, 1 failed), while it failed in both regions with what I'd consider lower turnout. The left skews younger on here; more people on vacation/preparing to go back to school. It's not like I've caught up on everything yet, but weak messaging in the weeks leading up to it probably played a factor as well.

Dealing with the Senate, sructuring it post-consolidation I mean, was always going to be the harder part. The Polling data and statements by the major players indicated that such would be the case and that still seems to be at play.

Lets see 4 Regional Senate seats and Five At-Large seats. Something doesn't add up here and it isn't just the loss of an even Senate numbers wise.

Also amend the VP how?

And? If it came down to correcting the issue by formally adding a 6th at-large seat or eliminating the 10th seat altogether, I have full faith and confidence that the Senate can adequately handle all the necessary tasks of "10 9" and/or "5 6". The Fix the Regions amendment was magnitudes more complex in terms of constitutional and political juggling.

That would be an imbalanced Senate and yes, that would die painfully. The Regional and At-large seats will be maintain in equal numbers as long as we have a unicameral system. The Duke Plan, the Nix Plan all proceeded with maintaining this important principle. Maybe it doesn't matter to you but it does to myself and I would figure to most Regionalists as well.

Oh, and I was vaguely referring to how maybe we could give the VP another ceremonial power in the event of a 9-member Senate, since the office's tie-breaker power would be substantially diluted.

So we have to open yet another unnecessary can of worms. As I recall the last attempt to reform the VP was divisive and it failed ultimately, and not to mention was proven unnecessary by the split administration. The only problem with the VP is the expectation that it can be used as a retirement home like in the past, which it cannot obviously.

Just leaving this to be "quickly" settled will ensure a inbalanced Senate for a long time to come and I won't stand for it even in the interim, more or less long term.

Are you saying that the Right would play political games with any such necessary amendment? I could be totally mistaken, but I don't think there'd be any significant portion of the Left that would vote against a needed measure like this, so it'd certainly pass in the three two more leftist regions. Would the Mideast and/or the IDS decide to spitefully veto the restoration of a 10th Senate seat as a sixth at-large seat (since that seems like the more preferred solution for expedient results)? I certainly hope that wouldn't be the case. If these two regions wish to merge, then they should be allowed to do so via the whole notion of regional rights, rather than be given a bandage solution that apparently is the only way to handle problems these days due to the Right being so relatively powerful.

[/quote]

The right will not play games and precisely because we believe in regionalism, we will insist thus on the key Federalist principle of having equal representation between both interests in the legislative branch.

Indeed, this is all rather ridiculous. Provided we maintain the seperate entities (albeit with their joint regional governments), we can fairly maintain equal represenation in the Senate in accordance with the One Region-One Regional Senator principle and equal numbers to the At-Large seats. In short, we can avoid touching the Senate entirely.

I really don't know why a desire for simplicity or whatnot is seeking to motivate what is presently a simple measure to move towards greater complexity and great divisiveness.

Basically so as to not half-ass the process. The whole "it's 2 regions but now it's 1 region but it's really 2 regions" plan seems oddly reminiscent of the Atlasian-Canadian Common Market Agreement. Hell, the main motivation for me to see that one through was for people to be able to live in Canada, but apparently we still can't even get that enforced because of all the "careful considerations" that went into it. I'd hate for this to end up like that. How sure can we be that it won't? It only takes one court case to find out, especially when there are vague concepts like "accord" (we could at least use the wording from the Article I Section 7 clause, which I could argue is not even applicable here). The Senate has the power itself to merge these regions if they so choose and then give the public the ability to restore its full representation nationally. People residing in every other region would automatically have more representation by virtue of 10% of it not being confined to a region (6 at-large versus 5 at-large), while the people in each region wouldn't lose any representation as individuals (they had 1 regional Senator, they still have 1 regional Senator).

You don't understand this issue very much it seems. At-Large Senators do not represent a regional interests but that of the whole nation, as they should of course. The very purpose of keeping an equal balance in the numbers is to ensure that there is a balance of powers between the Federal legislative influence exerted by regions (as determined by its own people) and the Federal legislative influence exerted by the people of the whole nation. I was open to consolidation for months and supported both the Nix and Duke plans for handling the Senate once it happened. But I will oppose any proposal that violates this critical principle for it underpins to a great extent the whole of regionalism as it interacts with the Federal Government.

Why would the Midwest and Pacific regions want to give up one of their senate seats?  That would be like a state in the USA voluntarily giving up one of its reps in Congress when it wasn't required to do so.

Like I said above: as individuals, they wouldn't be giving up anything. Each citizen would have the same number of regional Senators representing them in the Senate, while also being able to all have a say in 70% of the Senators elected, versus 60% today (5 at-large + 1 regional).

I think there is an argument that could be made revolving around these two regions being allowed to form a unified government while retaining two regional Senators.

Then make it, and I can counter that with an alternative that will solve that problem as well most likely, but at the end of the day this will just get more complex, more divisive and further away from what we were like a day away from voting to authorize here. It seems that you do like crises, so much so that you are chosing to create once at the expence of doing something to achieve a breakthrough on this.

[Adam Griffin]

Dealing with the Senate, sructuring it post-consolidation I mean, was always going to be the harder part. The Polling data and statements by the major players indicated that such would be the case and that still seems to be at play.

Perhaps I'm forgetful or wasn't here, but I don't remember much discussion outside of the Duke Plan in regards to restructuring the Senate. From my perspective, I still insist that ratifying something like the Fix the Regions Amendment in four regions - combined with the haggling on its details - would be far more work and take much more time. The only thing that could stop restructuring of the Senate is a personal rivalry.  I don't think that by default you will find much insistence from the left for the Senate make-up to be deliberately more pro-Federal when an act of consolidation is simultaneously occurring; it'd be more of a simple consequence in that scenario. Personally, I'd be perfectly fine with reducing the number of Senators to 8 (-1 regional, -1 at-large), which would if I recall correctly also help push us more toward the Duke Plan.

That would be an imbalanced Senate and yes, that would die painfully. The Regional and At-large seats will be maintain in equal numbers as long as we have a unicameral system. The Duke Plan, the Nix Plan all proceeded with maintaining this important principle. Maybe it doesn't matter to you but it does to myself and I would figure to most Regionalists as well.

Then balance it? Like I said above, I have nothing against 4 & 4 - it really was more of an oversight in thought on my part initially.

So we have to open yet another unnecessary can of worms. As I recall the last attempt to reform the VP was divisive and it failed ultimately, and not to mention was proven unnecessary by the split administration. The only problem with the VP is the expectation that it can be used as a retirement home like in the past, which it cannot obviously.

Or not; I really don't care much about an expansion or reduction in the VP's powers, and I certainly wasn't trying to make a strong push for expansion while a Federalist administration is in power. I was just throwing out a suggestion, since effectively, the VP's powers would be diminished with 9 Senators. After all, I know how much you like balance. With 8 Senators, it wouldn't be an issue.

The right will not play games and precisely because we believe in regionalism, we will insist thus on the key Federalist principle of having equal representation between both interests in the legislative branch.

I can respect this, but let's not be 100% assertive that if given the opportunity, a more regionally powerful system wouldn't be pursued. What I can't respect, however, is when the spirit of blind obstructionism is interwoven with the sentiment. In many cases, it can be difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. I'm not accusing you of this.

You don't understand this issue very much it seems. At-Large Senators do not represent a regional interests but that of the whole nation, as they should of course. The very purpose of keeping an equal balance in the numbers is to ensure that there is a balance of powers between the Federal legislative influence exerted by regions (as determined by its own people) and the Federal legislative influence exerted by the people of the whole nation. I was open to consolidation for months and supported both the Nix and Duke plans for handling the Senate once it happened. But I will oppose any proposal that violates this critical principle for it underpins to a great extent the whole of regionalism as it interacts with the Federal Government.

I just don't share the position or viewpoint you do, regardless of implied functionality. In this game, you represent who elects you - I get the intent, but that is the reality. I'd say more people find "the election of what percentage of Senators could my ballot affect?" to be a more tangible concern than "what is the ratio of legislative influence between the federal government and the states?". In either case, though, the game will continue to be entertaining regardless.

Then make it, and I can counter that with an alternative that will solve that problem as well most likely, but at the end of the day this will just get more complex, more divisive and further away from what we were like a day away from voting to authorize here. It seems that you do like crises, so much so that you are chosing to create once at the expence of doing something to achieve a breakthrough on this.

Yes, Yankee, because I'm literally the PPT and I have shut down all debate on the issue, LOL. I wanted to initiate a dialogue on the matter to say that persistence on this one specific issue will continue to be a prime concern of mine, but of course a step in the right direction is great. I still think that the negative effects of consolidation need to be fully addressed and are more pressing than a temporary imbalance in the Senate, but I'm also not a Federalist. Please, go ahead and pass this: no crisis needed in this case, unless 9 of your Senators have suddenly disappeared and/or this is the only thread being debated right now that didn't get bumped by you a couple of hours ago.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dealing with the Senate, sructuring it post-consolidation I mean, was always going to be the harder part. The Polling data and statements by the major players indicated that such would be the case and that still seems to be at play.

Perhaps I'm forgetful or wasn't here, but I don't remember much discussion outside of the Duke Plan in regards to restructuring the Senate. From my perspective, I still insist that ratifying something like the Fix the Regions Amendment in four regions - combined with the haggling on its details - would be far more work and take much more time. The only thing that could stop restructuring of the Senate is a personal rivalry.  I don't think that by default you will find much insistence from the left for the Senate make-up to be deliberately more pro-Federal when an act of consolidation is simultaneously occurring; it'd be more of a simple consequence in that scenario. Personally, I'd be perfectly fine with reducing the number of Senators to 8 (-1 regional, -1 at-large), which would if I recall correctly also help push us more toward the Duke Plan.

Actually that is more like the Nix plan, since it would still be unicameral. Duke plan was bicameral.

I would point out that I raised this very issue of not breaking the balance in my first post in the thread you linked to.

That would be an imbalanced Senate and yes, that would die painfully. The Regional and At-large seats will be maintain in equal numbers as long as we have a unicameral system. The Duke Plan, the Nix Plan all proceeded with maintaining this important principle. Maybe it doesn't matter to you but it does to myself and I would figure to most Regionalists as well.

Then balance it? Like I said above, I have nothing against 4 & 4 - it really was more of an oversight in thought on my part initially.

You could have said that. Your previous statements were rather insultingly dismissive about those concerns you didn't acknowledge, this specific balance being one of them.

So we have to open yet another unnecessary can of worms. As I recall the last attempt to reform the VP was divisive and it failed ultimately, and not to mention was proven unnecessary by the split administration. The only problem with the VP is the expectation that it can be used as a retirement home like in the past, which it cannot obviously.

Or not; I really don't care much about an expansion or reduction in the VP's powers, and I certainly wasn't trying to make a strong push for expansion while a Federalist administration is in power. I was just throwing out a suggestion, since effectively, the VP's powers would be diminished with 9 Senators. After all, I know how much you like balance. With 8 Senators, it wouldn't be an issue.

I like balance of powers, because I think it helps check corruption and tyranical self grants of power. In a game like scenario the effect of such would discourage participation and encourage deregistrations, not the temporary AG kind, either.

The right will not play games and precisely because we believe in regionalism, we will insist thus on the key Federalist principle of having equal representation between both interests in the legislative branch.

I can respect this, but let's not be 100% assertive that if given the opportunity, a more regionally powerful system wouldn't be pursued. What I can't respect, however, is when the spirit of blind obstructionism is interwoven with the sentiment. In many cases, it can be difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. I'm not accusing you of this.

Regionally powerfull?  Hmm. The irony is I am not the Regionalist that some in the former RPP were. There was a time when I was new back in early 2009, when a ten Regionalist Senate sounded appealing, but that was before I became more systemtic in my approach and such would of course require a lower house to represent the people equally and create too many offices obviously overall. I have supported numerous reforms on a whole host of game issues and have kept an open mind whilst operating within this very framework, as exemplified by the "Lets Really Shake Things..." you linked to in your post. I opposed attempts to put term limits on the court, to make the VP a Senator, efforts to abolish/weaken Regional representation. I helped Tyrion even when I didn't much like the idea of a people's court and then afterwards came to few it as an acceptable way to avoid term limits hence why I voted with TNF as the only Ayes on it. It seems most people viewed that in reverse of my perspective. I tried to help Antonio's effort at consolidation and I gave six months of careful consideration to the most recent consolidation effort, and was still willing to make Duke's Morning After plan a success if consolidation were to happen. To make a long story short ( and this block quoted masterpiece just a tad longer since I know you love them so. ), I am glad you are not accusing me of such for that is just one segment of reform, more or less the whole range of domestic issues as well I could site.

You don't understand this issue very much it seems. At-Large Senators do not represent a regional interests but that of the whole nation, as they should of course. The very purpose of keeping an equal balance in the numbers is to ensure that there is a balance of powers between the Federal legislative influence exerted by regions (as determined by its own people) and the Federal legislative influence exerted by the people of the whole nation. I was open to consolidation for months and supported both the Nix and Duke plans for handling the Senate once it happened. But I will oppose any proposal that violates this critical principle for it underpins to a great extent the whole of regionalism as it interacts with the Federal Government.

I just don't share the position or viewpoint you do, regardless of implied functionality. In this game, you represent who elects you - I get the intent, but that is the reality. I'd say more people find "the election of what percentage of Senators could my ballot affect?" to be a more tangible concern than "what is the ratio of legislative influence between the federal government and the states?". In either case, though, the game will continue to be entertaining regardless.

Entertainment value is a factor of participation. Ensuring people can be heard is a critically important factor in maximizing participation. The objects of concern are different, but the need for the balance is still present. A fully nationalized represenation will risk that concerns specific to a particular region like Huricanes in the IDS or fires in the Pacific, or maybe agriculture or climate or any number of various concerns get equal weight and are drowned on the list of national priorities. THis way, the regions can act in unison through their representatives to demand consideration for these ah cosniderations when federal legislation is debated. I can make the same arguement entirely with in game concerns, but I figured these examples are more effective in making the point.

Then make it, and I can counter that with an alternative that will solve that problem as well most likely, but at the end of the day this will just get more complex, more divisive and further away from what we were like a day away from voting to authorize here. It seems that you do like crises, so much so that you are chosing to create once at the expence of doing something to achieve a breakthrough on this.

Yes, Yankee, because I'm literally the PPT and I have shut down all debate on the issue, LOL. I wanted to initiate a dialogue on the matter to say that persistence on this one specific issue will continue to be a prime concern of mine, but of course a step in the right direction is great. I still think that the negative effects of consolidation need to be fully addressed and are more pressing than a temporary imbalance in the Senate, but I'm also not a Federalist. Please, go ahead and pass this: no crisis needed in this case, unless 9 of your Senators have suddenly disappeared and/or this is the only thread being debated right now that didn't get bumped by you a couple of hours ago.

Actually, you have not shut down debate, you have facilitated it, which is the point. Debate shall continue as long as posting on the merits continues or until ended by cloture/waived by UC. You are not a Senator, Tally, Tyrion and myself are though.

Regardless the problem here is not the discussion but the appearence that you were seeking to start up a fight on an issue, of which you seemed to not appreciate the lay of the land so to speak.