Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Proposed by: Bore

Senators have 36 hours to object to this amendment

[Cranberry]

I guess that's sensible, I wonder though if it was not wiser to just use the most recent Census?

[Senator Cris]

The members of the commission are 6 (Governors and SoFE). So, with the Bore's amendment, it would need 5 votes to pass.

I'm ok with it.

[windjammer]

It has been significantly improved.
I will propose an another amendment however.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What happened with that amendment?

[bore]

Bore's amendment has been adopted

[windjammer]

Proposing an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I know, this can be the same person . It is good to have more than 1 person drawing the maps!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Good point. It could be rather daunting and thus overwhelming for one person to tackle.

[Cranberry]

Yes, this seems sensible.

[windjammer]

Good point. It could be rather daunting and thus overwhelming for one person to tackle.

Yes, this seems sensible.

Thank you .
I have 2 amendments to propose after that!

[bore]

Senators have 36 hours to object to windjammer's amendment

[Senator Cris]

I'm ok with it.

[bore]

Windjammer's amendment has been adopted

[windjammer]

Could you post the new version of the bill please?

[bore]

[quote:current text]Electoral Reform Amendment

Article I, Section IV, of the Constitution is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't want an ugly map where California and New York could be in the same district.

[Cranberry]

I understand your concerns, Senator, but problems could arise this way, as New York State could provide the problem of being a bottleneck. Let's take the example that the ideal district size would be, let's say 25, so everything from 22 to 28 would be permitted. Now, let's assume the six New England states together have a population of 20, and New York has a population of 10. There is no way out now - without New York, the district would be too small; with New York, it would be too big. Thus, we either need a specific exemption just for New York, or a rule that they would not need to be continuos. In our example, we could then take New Jersey, which shall have a population of 3 - and voilà, District 1 is created.

[Adam Griffin]

Bottlenecks are no longer a problem...if everyone stops forgetting that we now have Canada to consider, too.

[SWE]

I object to windjammer's amendment

[Cranberry]

Oh, of course, there are people living in Canada as well Thanks, Adam!

Forget everything I said in my last post. Now with this, your amendment is sensible, and I will support it, as neither I don't want no California-NY district...

[Senator Cris]

Yes. I'll support the amendement proposed by Senator Windjammer.
As said time ago, I think that districts should be contiguous.

[windjammer]

Well,
I was going to make a long speech about why the districts need to be contiguous. But it appears it won't be necessary .

[bore]

A vote is now open on Windjammer's amendment please vote aye nay or abstain

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[windjammer]

Aye