SENATE BILL: The Bicameral Birthing Amendment of 2014 (sent to the Regions?)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Article 1, Section 4 of the Third Constitution of Atlasia is amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: The Addition of the House

1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “The House” and shall read:
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 4: House Districts and Elections

1. Article 1, Section 9 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “Elections to the House” and shall read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Adam Griffin

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SPEAK ADAM!!!


 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Duke Plan preserved the balance in the legislative branch by giving Regions the entirety of the Senate whilst the House was Proportional. This does not do that at present.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Duke Plan preserved the balance in the legislative branch by giving Regions the entirety of the Senate whilst the House was Proportional. This does not do that at present.

Yes Yankee, I know that this doesn't perfectly fit your ideological purity test for some perceived need of balance.

Now Adam, has that attitude, or should I say approach, brought you any degree of success so far in these matters?

I would vote for an amendment like this that was based on the Duke plan's legislative structure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you have the gov't structure pre-established the chances probably improve with regards to passing the Fix the Region's amendment.

Also, if that structure preserves the balance the Duke plan included, chances improve of it passing in a four region as well, probably the IDS more so then the ME.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The consolidation process itself failed, but that was partially because there were disagreements over how it was structured as well as the issue itself and even some noted reformists voted against it in various regions. Remember, it only got ~40% total nationwide.

If you have the gov't structure pre-established, and include the Duke plans balance, you'll stand a much better chance of getting pro-Regionalists to support it in the ME and IDS, as well as those who might been hessitant to vote for starting a process that left a question mark on some pretty important issues to be decided latter.

I said then I supported the Duke Plan's gov't structure for a post consolidation environment and that still stands.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Duke Plan preserved the balance in the legislative branch by giving Regions the entirety of the Senate whilst the House was Proportional. This does not do that at present.

Yes Yankee, I know that this doesn't perfectly fit your ideological purity test for some perceived need of balance.

Now Adam, has that attitude, or should I say approach, brought you any degree of success so far in these matters?

I would vote for an amendment like this that was based on the Duke plan's legislative structure.

I'm failing to really see here how this is drastically different than the outline of the original plan, except for that balance argument that a large majority of the game doesn't care for. Maybe I'd agree with you if the regions in this game weren't a faltering institution that merited proposals like this in the first place. Sure, let's give them more election booths to manage and more candidates to find exclusively within their own borders. We don't even know if consolidation itself will solve the problems it aims to, so I'd prefer not stacking the deck against it even more by filling the void of eliminated offices with more offices.

What are you talking about? It is still a substantial reduction in the number of offices combned with a consolidation from five to three regions and a four personal smaller Senate. I don't see how proceeding with the Duke Plan's structure stacks the deck against success in this regard. Also what is this "original plan" you are speaking of? Fix the regions was originally formed under Nix to facilitate the consolidation and left the gov't structure as a big question mark, which remained a hinderance to the passing of the Fix the regions' Amendment to the end. Nix had his own plan for the post consolidation legislature design that contained only one chamber that was also balanced 6 and 6, I would point out. That would I think be best termed "the original plan", would it not? I am beginning to think you are not even familiar with the contents of the Duke plan in this regard.

The only real difference is the size of the lower chamber and the name of it; I don't see any reason to create a House that is essentially the same size as the Senate. The bill itself would ultimately be so large that I didn't bother adding elements such as which chambers can introduce which types of bills and the like, so there's no disagreement there.  After all, why waste any more time on the initial version when I knew there'd be all of this pushback no matter what?

Again what is this "initial version". Fix the Regions was a process established to facilitate the consolidation, which would then not go into effect until the post Consolidation legislative structure had been agreed to. I am not sure what you are comparing against. The Duke Plan's legislative structure was never voted on. If their was opposition to it, it was probably mainly centered on the opposition to bicameralism but it was never tested.  

FTRA failed by the margin that it did because it was winter break and turnout for that vote was among some of the lowest that I've seen in the game, but we've already been over that. We all know how low turnout phenomena work in this game and in real-life.

Really? It was all about turnout? I think your absence from the forum has hurt you in this regard. What about all the reformists who voted against it? What about the anti-regionalists who voted against it? Turnout might have flipped the Northeast but not the IDS And ME where turnout was about normal or just slightly down as I recall, so no it would not have changed the result. There were also the numerous voters mentioned above that would have further reduced the nationwide support levels regardless, which could very well have been extrapolated to those similar types who didn't vote if they had turned out, thus preserving a similar such nationwide margin.  

And it's not like I haven't compromised in this bill or on other areas of this broader agenda, and what has that attitude/approach got me?

You seem to be intent on picking a fight where none has to exist and thereby ensuring nothing gets done on this. You could pass this amendment with the Duke Plan and stand a far better shot at getting this passed in the regions then with what you have now. With a settled post-consolidation gov't plan that is reasonable with regards to the region, you stand a better chance at flipping some of those nay voters that could change the result in the fourth region (presuming the NE was all about turnout).

Face it: you're the easiest path to the 7th vote on matters like this and your obstruction on the matter makes you individually more responsible for continuing to derail any proposal like this than anyone else in the game.

Continue to fail? We haven't voted on it since December and as I recall, the first time it failed in the Senate because three people you helped put there didn't bother to vote on it, including its own sponsor. Your people did far more to obstruct that Amendment in the Senate by not voting then anything I did. I actually worked constructively and tried to find a structure that I would vote for. You make it sound like I filibustered the damn thing.

You can choose to compromise in a process like this like everyone else has, or you can choose to continue sinking the leader of your party's ideas and make him the only modern President not to achieve any major piece of reform. My tone has absolutely nothing to do with your decisions.

I did compromise when I supported the government structure's of the Nix and Duke plan.

Yes your approach does matter, if you purposely refused to go with a plan that contains a provision that no one supposedly cares about as you said, for no obvious reason except your own intransigence, yes I would say it has plenty to do with it.

You are not going to imitidate me into embracing a plan I think is bad. If you want Duke to have a success then I will trust you will join me in voting for the Duke plan's gov't structure as opposed to this. How does Duke even fit into this Amendment? He didn't make this structure, you did and President's don't sign amendments. So how exactly are you not, if anything, pushing Duke aside as opposed to supporting him against my alleged opposition. You are attacking his plan, you are the one critizing his plan whilst I am promoting it, and yet it is me who is underming him? Man you live in such a world of contortion and conspiracy, Griffin.

Sweet Dukey: you would've done better to cum with the Labor. I remember you were afraid of them sinking your plans if you angered them. I can't really tell a difference at this point: are they mad at you right now?

I must have missed all the laborite support for Duke's domestic agenda or imagined all the railing against so called TPP-Federalist corporatism and his favoring the filty rich. You have opposed far more of Duke's agenda then I have.

Duke's party membership would not have changed the outcome back in December, nor would it have made it more likely to get through any time since then. It would have stiffled his domestic agenda though out of the necessity of party unity and caused him to lose even more of his agenda.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dear sweet God, please stop breaking down replies into splintered, meaningless quotes. I'm putting your replies back together, as they should be.

But thats where the fun is!!! If I didn't respond to each paragraph, a lot of stuff would not get covered that needs to be responded to.

Giving jurisdiction to these elected offices to regions is a bad idea - that's what I mean by stacking the deck. For some need of "balance", we're going to put the (presumably) management of election booths and the jurisdiction of the Senators themselves in the hands of the same institutions that currently aren't performing how they need to in those areas. It's easy to find at-large Senators; I worry about not finding two interesting souls to run for Senate from a region (not now, but it's very possible that that could have happened without an incumbent several months ago in one region or another).

I never called for that here. What are you talking about that was not part of the Duke plan, the Regional Senate seats would still be administered like they are now? I merely suggested the idea in the Referenda theme. Different Amendemnt man, different amendment. But now that you mention it.

The initial version I referred to was this bill that I introduced; I didn't want to put any more work into it knowing these kind of debates would pop up. I'm comparing against the framework Google Doc for the plan itself; the only real difference other than federalism is the number of people in the lower chamber.

 


The Duke plan had six regional Senate seats split into two classes, that is the source of my complaint. I think we have been talking on different frequencies here man.

And yes, failure of FTRA was predominantly about turnout. There were people who voted against it who I didn't expect to - both because it didn't go far enough and because they bailed on the idea toward the end - but it was much more an issue of people not turning out to vote. How do I know? Because I really didn't push people to come out and vote. I thought there was enough excitement about it, honestly, but the combination of the holidays and my lack of engagement proved me wrong. Yes, it would have never passed in 4 regions on the first go and I didn't expect for it to - 3 would have been different, though. Had it, the IDS would probably still be on fire right now. But thanks to the 17th Amendment, the real success is achieved when it leaves the Senate, no? We have an infinite amount of time to change the course of destiny.

I thought you hated the 17th Amendment.

And yep, there has been no fight up until this point, and that's the whole point. You, Duke, Cinci or someone else aligned with the latest rendition of this rather old plan (we're now calling it "The Duke Plan") hasn't been willing it seems to introduce a framework to actually get this process rolling. I have, so yeah...arguing is my trademark of sorts. You're going to need to learn how to effectively argue to deal with the components of this game who oppose this plan, so you can practice on me, I suppose. I highly doubt IDS voters are magically going to come along with this plan, especially after the statements made about how it was abandoned due to lack of support. I tell you what: if you can put together a petition of the majority of the residents of that region who support this, I'll step aside completely on the matter. Otherwise, I'm not prepared to negotiate with people who don't negotiate.

Duke wanted to let it lie and focus on other matters, for one thing. Second of all I was a supporter of a four region plan last year but the best gov't structures don't work so well with that (Nix and Duke plans). I was always rather dubious about the three region consolidation plan in general but was willing to assist in the formation of a gov't plan if people were to determined to go in that direction and like you said previously I figured it was the case as well, the last thing I wanted was a bad idea to be even worse. That said I did sour on consolidation in general and figured there was a better approach to turning the game around.

My approach again is not important: there's a way around this, of course. You most likely have 5 Senators who are ready to support the majority of what Duke initially asked for - maybe 6 -  but that one provision is going to keep you firmly rooted against it, I suppose. A provision that is a tenet of 30% of the Senate. At this point, the balance of resistance isn't what it was last year. And at the end of the day, all of these plans have in essence been evolutions of the original one I helped hatch in IRC in late April/early May 2013 (which is why I'm so offended when it's suggested that I have not compromised immensely).

I never suggested you didn't compromise. The difference between that is merely academic and one made that involves the key players is typically one of them almost always fails and the other is more likley to get passed.

The first consolidation plan I had contact with was I think back in 2012 by Antonio and I got it to the floor for him. So I was doubly unsure as to what you were refering to by "original".

I wouldn't know, my new computer quit, and even if it hadn't, I probably would not have been in the IRC after May 1st, 2013 (I have only been in since twice total as I find it a dreadful place full weird people. ). If I was half the obstructionist dick you think I am, I tell you where you can shove this merely for making the IRC connection that just happens to coincide with when Rimjob was beginning to be hatched.

Would you mind showing me your "original plan"?

You think the plan is "bad" because we're not giving the least reliable aspect of the game as much say as you'd like. The plan itself is the same that Duke outlined, with the exception of that. You won't compromise, and frankly, you haven't had to compromise on much on this series of debates, seeing as how you found the broader arguments of consolidation to be convincing in and of themselves. We've walked from regional elimination to three regions drawn independently to three regions drawn by Governors with a variety of other provisions mixed in. I remember us having a similar conversation in the FTRA thread way back when, where I backed off about something to do with balance. I've compromised plenty. So I suppose after pushing the rock up against the wall, you can blame the rock for not moving any more.

Convincing? I have become a skeptic more and more since last fall. I really don't think consolidation is going to change much except create a temporary stir that will fade similar to that of dissolution. Duke had a Senate that was all Regional, and a House that was all proportional. I will vote that out of the Senate, and let the people decide on the matter. An amendment that preserves the balance between regional and proportional interests will be less likely to incure the wrath of regionalist voters then one that dillutes it to 1/4 of the legislature process. If it passes the regions, the Fix the Regions Amendment will then be far better positioned, having both a gov't structure pre-established and a legislative process at the end that doesn't change the legislatures balance of interests. I consider that to be rather reasonable, or shall we say, agreeable degree of cooperation considering my position.

And anything we've sunk of Duke's on policy pertains to small-ball economic and social policy that doesn't actually leave a lasting mark on the game (which everyone knows). The President's tenure is measured by his ability to change the structure of the game, and on that front, you guys have been by far the obstructionists.

And that is precisely why I think Consolidation will fail. At some point that policy has to matter otherwise you always need another reform, again and again reform to nowhere. The policy stuff has to matter and that dubiousness about those issues ever mattering, from you and others as being unimportant, adds to my worry. So yes, your tone does once again, matter.  

If Consolidation were passed, would these "small ball" thinks becoming "Big Fing Deals" (lol Biden reference ftw!!!)?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Eeeeeh, are you sure Bicameralism will work?

Bicameralism is terrible, isn't it?

Actually, there was once a big argument over that and that could be a hinderance that cuts across spectrum like it did back in 2009.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The two biggest blowhards of the Senate rambling on and going back and forth is scaring off the rest of the Senators from the discussion.

Dude, this is the Senate. They rarely discuss anything, it would be impossible to scare off what does not exist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A vote can be opened in just under two and a half hours on the amendment.


Granted, there will need to be subsequent amendments to the subsequent portions of the text, but I am fine with Lumine's amendment as a starting point.

I don't really have a problem with any particular size in the House, though I do think that smaller would increase the net office reduction further.


And yes, A person is right, we need to establish which branch is going to be doing what and to what extent. Article 1 is going to look much different I imagine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lumine, it needs to be remembered that we would only get an 11 seat second chamber after shaving off two regions and 4 senate seats- there would actually be a net reduction in offices under Griffin's plan.

If the net reduction is the key, wouldn't the larger reduction in offices be more preferable towards assuring success of consolidation?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lumine, it needs to be remembered that we would only get an 11 seat second chamber after shaving off two regions and 4 senate seats- there would actually be a net reduction in offices under Griffin's plan.

If the net reduction is the key, wouldn't the larger reduction in offices be more preferable towards assuring success of consolidation?

We could just not have a second chamber at all and eliminate these excess regional offices, by that logic.

A question of extent. The second chamber is meant to create something interesting and new I belive, which is why Duke embraced. The second chamber is unnecessary to preserve my priorities, which the Nix plan also did, but with just one chamber as I recall.

In my opinion, there needs to be lots of contrast between the two chambers. Not only in terms of procedure, but in terms of how the bodies are perceived by players. As it stands, the only jumping board for newer players is to get involved with regions. An eight-member House will not change that; it'll be as effectively contested in terms of the experience of many candidates for office as the Senate. It should in essence be an issue of quantity versus quality, though not in its purest form - kind of like the regions versus the federal government.

So basically you want a substitute to get people started that those Regional legislative positions presently serve, though with less competativeness in order to facilitate that.

Like I said before, a 3:1 ratio would be ideal to me, but only something that could be done if we eliminated regional offices altogether. I personally think we could handle 11, and I recall that in our initial discussions on the game mechanics of the matter all those months ago, that such numbers seemed feasible based on some analysis that several of us did. Also, are we going to make the House like the Senate in terms of tiebreaking? I'd really prefer the House had an odd number of representatives so that we don't have to craft specific provisions for that that are the rule rather than the exception.

Yes we did have discussion before on the number of offices and I do recall we agreed to a large extend on the numbers, but I might be mistaken.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we willing to have a bicameral legislature with a 5 region setup?

I understand that the major issue is that we don't want a net creation of offices, but I'm not sure how we could pass this while tying it to the (very necessary) regional reduction.

The purpose of this underlying amendment as I see it, and though it got lost in our little scuffle on the other page, I do praise Adam for crafting the strategy even if the details are at issue, is that you create the gov't structure for a post consolidation game ahead of time so people know what they are getting to some extent afterwards and thus with fewer question marks more people would be willing to vote for Fix the Regions in the Ratification process.

I don't think the intent is for this to pass solely for itself and it would not go into effect even once ratified unless consolidation were to be ratified subsequently at some point.

As to your question you could remove the AT-Large Senate seats and thereby minize the net increase to three (assuming it is the Duke Plan's/Lumine's Amendment's numbers for the house), from creating a People's House, but yes you could do bicameralism with the present setup.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This vote ends tomorrow night.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

June 03, 2014, 09:21:03 pm (10:21 PM EDT)


Good thing I will be on tomorrow morning. Or Cincy, probably Cincy.


I support the bore amendment, but you might want to leave that last line in and just change it from one to two.

I think it is a carryover designed to prevent a Region from trying to take more then there fair share like the Pacific tried to do back in 2011.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 61:39 by Lumine:

Aye (4): DC al fine, Goldwater, Lumine and NC Yankee
Nay (5): Adam Griffin, Alfred F. Jones, bore, TNF and TyriontheImperialist
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): shua

The amendment has been rejected.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Article 1, Section 4 of the Third Constitution of Atlasia is amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: The Addition of the House

1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “The House” and shall read:
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 4: House Districts and Elections

1. Article 1, Section 9 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “Elections to the House” and shall read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]


Edit: Fixed a copy and paste induced mistake.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah feedback, Adam?


So as for duties.

Should the Senate have sole responsbility for confirmations as more of a Cigar, Brandy and British accent crowd, or should the unwashed masses also have a say in the matter as well?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Adam is my above amendment friendly?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: FRiendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours ot object.

Well at least it gave me time to fix the typos, now numbering three in total.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

THe amendment 61:49 has been adopted.


I would prefer we keep it as simple as possible though. The very reason that we won't be in a two party system for ever make me leary of establishing a system that requires conferences or caucuses to function. The nice thing about the committees was that they could be dispensed with, without jeopardizing basic functions, where as in such a scenario and with so few people in the Senate especially it is not practical. You could possibly do it with 11 in the House though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I oppose both Judicial term limits or abolishing the regions. I also am not to keen on turning the Senate into a House of Lords.