SENATE BILL: Efficient Referenda Amendment (Failed)

[Adam Griffin]

I would like to propose an amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[President Tyrion]

I'm inclined to vote against this. I typically don't like laws that centralize the Government and diminish the role of the Regions. I really don't understand why some regional executives are too inactive to open up a voting booth.

Not understanding it means you would choose to enable it?

One could argue that removal of responsbility, will also enable/encourage inactivity on the part of Regional executives.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. I think the solution should be for Regions to elect more active executives, not to eliminate this responsibility from their jobs.

So, let me get this straight:

1. Regional executives are often inactive, and do not open booths for federal amendments.
2. We are suggesting taking that responsibility from inactive actors.
3. You are suggesting we leave them this responsibility in the hopes that the people of these regions just elect more active regional executives.
4. There is fear that these regional executives will become more inactive because they will have less to do.

Twisted logic, to say the least.

Anyway, Griffin's amendment works that out rather nicely.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm inclined to vote against this. I typically don't like laws that centralize the Government and diminish the role of the Regions. I really don't understand why some regional executives are too inactive to open up a voting booth.

Not understanding it means you would choose to enable it?

One could argue that removal of responsbility, will also enable/encourage inactivity on the part of Regional executives.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. I think the solution should be for Regions to elect more active executives, not to eliminate this responsibility from their jobs.

So, let me get this straight:

1. Regional executives are often inactive, and do not open booths for federal amendments.
2. We are suggesting taking that responsibility from inactive actors.
3. You are suggesting we leave them this responsibility in the hopes that the people of these regions just elect more active regional executives.
4. There is fear that these regional executives will become more inactive because they will have less to do.

Twisted logic, to say the least.

Anyway, Griffin's amendment works that out rather nicely.

The basis for taking that appraoch is that you need to get the Regional Executive active regardless of this issue, unless you plan to at some point just abolish the Regions. If you continue to accept that reality of they are probably going to be inactive, you work around it and essentially build a system where they are unnecessary, people will of course pay less attention, leading to worse outcomes and more inactivity.

[homelycooking]

I want to know why it is that those senators who complain about affronts, real and imagined, to "regional rights", object to my proposal to administer federal referenda but seem to have no problem with my administration of regional Senate elections.

[Goldwater]

Actually, I do like the idea of the Regions handling the Regional Senate elections.

[bore]

Amendment is friendly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want to know why it is that those senators who complain about affronts, real and imagined, to "regional rights", object to my proposal to administer federal referenda but seem to have no problem with my administration of regional Senate elections.

Faulty reasoning. We tried twice to regionalize their administration as I noted on page one homely (and this is only a one page plus thread).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I mean god damn homely, I would appreciate you to have the courtesy and respect for our more regionalist members to not strawman them in such a disrespectful fashion to treat these legitimate complaints that you may very well legitimately not share as such or to presume a position of hypocrisy by virtue of such strawmaning as well as a factual innaccuracy (namely presumming opposition to regionalizing the regional seats, when such is not the case at least on my part).

Hell I even attempted to switch the classes once to facilicate the regionalizing of the administration of Regional Senate seats.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Cincy may 24 hours on objections.

[Cincinnatus]

Senators, 24 hours to object to Amendment 61:09 by Griffin.

[Cincinnatus]

Is anyone open to a trade?  Regional Senate election administration for federal referenda administration?  Perhaps not..

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is anyone open to a trade?  Regional Senate election administration for federal referenda administration?  Perhaps not..

If it is done in one amendment, then perhaps?

The problem is regionalizing regional Senate seats is rather complex. You kinda of have to switch the classes around or you have just the Presidential election on that particular ballot.

Also you could not pass the Lameduck amendment and allow Regions to elect their SEnators at different times allowing for the flexibility to match it up with legislative elections, as long as they are done atl east a week before the start of the new term. This would be fine for the IDS, but the elections of the NE and ME might not be so facilitative thus.

[bore]

The northeast's regional elections are tied into the federal calendar.

But I, for one, wouldn't support regionalizing senate elections, because I'm certain that it wouldn't be long before a region failed to hold one. The current system is not broken, so does not need to be fixed. Unlike the amendment system.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

WEll it was a nice try Cincy. Marokai got burned on that as well.


You could argue that the Regional Legislative elections would get more attention and turnout if the Regional Senate seats were attached to the same ballot.

But I, for one, wouldn't support regionalizing senate elections, because I'm certain that it wouldn't be long before a region failed to hold one. The current system is not broken, so does not need to be fixed. Unlike the amendment system.

Is this distinction not the result of the fact that we have been blessed with two years plus of homelycooking doing a job that few would do and without incident? There was a time when the SoFE/SoFA was late or forgot to do it.

[bore]

But I, for one, wouldn't support regionalizing senate elections, because I'm certain that it wouldn't be long before a region failed to hold one. The current system is not broken, so does not need to be fixed. Unlike the amendment system.

Is this distinction not the result of the fact that we have been blessed with two years plus of homelycooking doing a job that few would do and without incident? There was a time when the SoFE/SoFA was late or forgot to do it.

Maybe, but it's still far less likely that you'll have a lazy/ incompetent SoFE than that 1 out of 5 regional executives is lazy/incompetent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This gets back to the point that I was mking before. Think of it as pressure points.

The reason you have less risk at the top is because no one would stand for it for long if one were missed. The more you remove stuff from the regional level, the less concern people will have to ensure iti s getting done. This is the point that I was trying to make on page one that people mocked. If you keep removing stuff from the Regional levle you create a self-fulfilling prophesy of inactivity and eventual abolition of them.

If you put Regional Senators on the regional legislative ballot, and one of them was missed, yes people would be outraged and bitch and moan about it being missed but
1) That very outrage would produce a reaction from a secondardy or tertiary alternate as well as to put pressure on the Governor in his next election, and
2) better ensure that in such a scenario that the legislative ballot was completed as well. Whereas you could go much longer then just a day a or two from lack of attention or concern if it as just the regional legislative body (as we have seen many times). 

You would also have two weeks or three weeks in which they could do it under the Federal approved window prior to the start of the new Senate.

[homelycooking]

I mean god damn homely, I would appreciate you to have the courtesy and respect for our more regionalist members to not strawman them in such a disrespectful fashion to treat these legitimate complaints that you may very well legitimately not share as such or to presume a position of hypocrisy by virtue of such strawmaning as well as a factual innaccuracy (namely presumming opposition to regionalizing the regional seats, when such is not the case at least on my part).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would appreciate it if you would summon the personal courtesy needed to not to lie about my record as SoFE...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I mean god damn homely, I would appreciate you to have the courtesy and respect for our more regionalist members to not strawman them in such a disrespectful fashion to treat these legitimate complaints that you may very well legitimately not share as such or to presume a position of hypocrisy by virtue of such strawmaning as well as a factual innaccuracy (namely presumming opposition to regionalizing the regional seats, when such is not the case at least on my part).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would appreciate it if you would summon the personal courtesy needed to not to lie about my record as SoFE...

Consider the latter repayment for the former.

[bore]

If it were the case that there were citizens in every region ready to punish lazy executives then I wouldn't mind delegating the regional senate elections, but I just don't think it is. Governors regularly miss amendment votes with little or no consequences, and there's not a rising up among the population. I think all we'd get by regionalizing senate elections is the negative consequences (missed votes) without any of the positives that you talk about, because it's been shown time and again that activity is not the only, or even the most important characteristic. And if that's so, is it worth the hassle?

[DemPGH]

In principle I very much support this, particularly with regard to a constitutional amendment. I think, though, that something above and beyond a simple majority should be required for passage - like 55%, just to throw out a figure, but that doesn't have to be it.

The idea in principle simplifies matters a great deal and puts one person in charge, which will alleviate some if not all of the current issues and problems.  

Jesus guys, this is about making the process efficient and not delegated out to five different actors, which obviously, increases chances for human error/failure to open the damn booth.    

Correct!

[windjammer]

Well,
Seriously, as Midwest Governor,  I believe that isn't my duty to administer that. I mean, as  Governor, I shall administer Midwest elections/Midwest constitutionnal amendments,...

But in that case, that's a federal issue. Homely administers the senate regional elections, I guess he should administer the Atlasia constitutionnal amendment too.
That's not a local issue, that's a federal issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want to know why it is that those senators who complain about affronts, real and imagined, to "regional rights", object to my proposal to administer federal referenda but seem to have no problem with my administration of regional Senate elections.

I missed this point yesterday and recalled the post later and what I should have said.

The regional booths are not part of a federal referenda, they may be referred to such but they are not under the strictest defintion of the terminology. They are components of the regional retification process by which Amenments to the Atlasian Constitution, proposed by the Atlasian Senate, are ratified and put into effect.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In principle I very much support this, particularly with regard to a constitutional amendment. I think, though, that something above and beyond a simple majority should be required for passage - like 55%, just to throw out a figure, but that doesn't have to be it.

The idea in principle simplifies matters a great deal and puts one person in charge, which will alleviate some if not all of the current issues and problems.  

This present amendment preserves the present threshold, which is a seperate debate. This is a great divide between us man, but I think it is rather foolish to open up to the whims of the temporary majority, the very freedoms and democratic processes we rely upon. How much did Prop 8 pass by in CA? I am pretty sure it was less than 55%. It was a Federal court to resisted that temporary popular majority. Imagine if the anti-gay marrigage Republicans and Democrats had united to passed an amendment in the Senate and Congress in say 2002 and it only would have taken 55% in a single nationwide popular vote referendum to pass it? Whereras under the present real life system, liberal Democrats could have blocked it or just not held the vote in a chamber they held in CA, NY, ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, MD, ILL, OR, WA, MN, NJ, HI, NC, MT, NM, NV, and DE state legislatures.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well,
Seriously, as Midwest Governor,  I believe that isn't my duty to administer that. I mean, as  Governor, I shall administer Midwest elections/Midwest constitutionnal amendments,...

But in that case, that's a federal issue. Homely administers the senate regional elections, I guess he should administer the Atlasia constitutionnal amendment too.
That's not a local issue, that's a federal issue.

Not entirely because like I meant to say yesterday, the system is structured to balance regional and federal in the Amendment process as it is balanced in the Senate. Therefore the ratification process is the voice of the regions in the matter and it is not as much of a leap to have Governor's administer at the Regional level as it would be if one just regards this a federal referendum vote, though I do realize many desire that it be switched to such eventually and I have done my best established the folly in doing so.

[DemPGH]

In principle I very much support this, particularly with regard to a constitutional amendment. I think, though, that something above and beyond a simple majority should be required for passage - like 55%, just to throw out a figure, but that doesn't have to be it.

The idea in principle simplifies matters a great deal and puts one person in charge, which will alleviate some if not all of the current issues and problems.  

This present amendment preserves the present threshold, which is a seperate debate. This is a great divide between us man, but I think it is rather foolish to open up to the whims of the temporary majority, the very freedoms and democratic processes we rely upon. How much did Prop 8 pass by in CA? I am pretty sure it was less than 55%. It was a Federal court to resisted that temporary popular majority. Imagine if the anti-gay marrigage Republicans and Democrats had united to passed an amendment in the Senate and Congress in say 2002 and it only would have taken 55% in a single nationwide popular vote referendum to pass it? Whereras under the present real life system, liberal Democrats could have blocked it or just not held the vote in a chamber they held in CA, NY, ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, MD, ILL, OR, WA, MN, NJ, HI, NC, MT, NM, NV, and DE state legislatures.

The threshold is incidental - I was only saying that looking at it is an option that could be on the table, like a referendum.

What we're talking about is streamlining what is a federal matter, and that's something that I support. As proposed, this amendment streamlines a process that is routinely in danger of not even being completed because there are too many people who for various reasons may not or may forget to do it. As a governor, I see this as no threat to me whatsoever - administering those votes would be one less thing that I would have to worry about if we hand this over to the SoFE. Why regions hold individual voting booths on what are clearly federal matters is actually something I never really understood and seems not very expeditious.