Opinion on Efficient referenda amendment

[Poirot]

An amendment will probably be sent to the regions very shortly and I wanted to express some problems I have with it. It is the Efficient referenda amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Upon passing the Senate the referendum will be immediately administer. There should be a period of time so citizens can notice the amendment before the vote starts. Some citizens might have questions and want some clarifications before making their mind. Some people might want to explain why there are problems with an amendment. When going to vote immediately there is no possibility of debate, no public engagement, less informed voters.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regions can make multiple attempts at passing an amendment. There should be a time period for passing an amendment in the regions like give one or two months. It leaves it open for eternity. A year after it failed a region can reactivate it. Citizens will have moved regions. Some citizens could vote twice on the same amendment in different regions. Why would someone have the right to vote twice on the same thing? If regions can try many times to adopt an amendment it doesn't say if regions can have another vote to change their mind after an amendment passed the region but not in the country and other regions have the possibility to accept the amendment after it failed.

These problems are probably in law now but they were not adressed. As for who administers the voting booth, the regions can do it and anyway they have the responsibility for ulterior votes and it's not uniform if some region deals with amendment without a public vote.   

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is an important discussion for us to be having, and one that really reinforces your first point. I can remember more than one instance where an amendment has passed the Senate with fatal flaws that were addressed and lead to its defeat and, if appropriate, a proposal of a corrected version.

     The issue is, the tendency to passively vote with others is a powerful one and we have to be aware that amendments can be ratified while retaining fatal flaws. This is also something that I have seen happen. I think a delay period before the amendment can help deal with this, but it is also important that we promote civil engagement and get members of the voting public debating the pros and cons of these Amendments. We want to do our best to make sure that only solid amendments go into the Constitution.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, good point. One of the advantages of the present system is that it at least allows (quite imperfectly) the possibility that a discussion gets started before all of the regions start voting. That word "immediately" is a problem.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yeah, good point. One of the advantages of the present system is that it at least allows (quite imperfectly) the possibility that a discussion gets started before all of the regions start voting. That word "immediately" is a problem.

This is why we cannot leave the Senate, shua.

[Oakvale]

Unless I'm much mistaken, the "vote indefinitely on amendments!" horror was already present in the Constitution as of a couple of years back, but I agree that it's long past time to repeal that mistake.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Its failing right now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I recommend if you have serious concerns about this amendment, then I suggest you make them known, publically and fast before the ayes come streaming in and it gets too late to do anything about it.

[cinyc]

I agree with Poirot.  This is a bad amendment, with (perhaps) unintended consequences.

I also think the Senator(s) who propose or oppose amendments should publish a voter guide detailing reasons why voters should vote for or against the proposed Amendment on this board at the time the amendment is up for a vote.  We put a similar provision in place in the Northeast last Assembly session.

Too often, we are asked to vote on technical changes that nobody outside of the Senate understands without any explanation as to why we should make a change.  That's one reason why I almost always vote against unexplained constitutional amendments.  If I can't determine whether the proposed Amendment is necessary, I assume that it isn't.

[windjammer]

Lol lol lol.

This amendment changes nothing about the previous version of the constitution, except that it would be the SoFE who would administer the voting booth instead of the governors, for the  regions which didn't decide to let the local assemblies vote for approval or not the constitutional amendments. The only difference would be that, except for the IDS, the SoFE would administer the voting booth for the constitutional amendmentd instead of the governor.


    There were no debates about constitutional amendments before, and this amendment won't change that. So at least I do hope that those who oppose this amendment will do that honestly. And not using reasons like "blabla we want debates", there was no debates before.

[free my dawg]

I agree with the conservative wing of the Northeast here. "Immediately" poses a rather large problem here, plus I'm not entirely keen on regions voting indefinitely at-will to ratify an amendment.

[windjammer]

I agree with the conservative wing of the Northeast here. "Immediately" poses a rather large problem here, plus I'm not entirely keen on regions voting indefinitely at-will to ratify an amendment.

It was already the case before.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not exactly. A region could delay their voting to allow for discussion if they wanted to. Or kill a flawed amendment by not holding the vote at all and force the Senate to try again. That is all gone now in this amendment, including that critical quality control aspect that was used at least twice that I recall.


The only problem was this system was inactive Governors, a problem we don't seem to have right now anyway. Aside from that, I see no motivation for doing this since it is the most desirable situation that a REGIONAL RATIFICATION booth be administered by the regions. It is not nor should it ever be a federal referendum, which implies a single nationwide, majority gets to f you, vote. The name itself is flawed as well.

[windjammer]

Not exactly. A region could delay their voting to allow for discussion if they wanted to. Or kill a flawed amendment by not holding the vote at all and force the Senate to try again. That is all gone now, including that critical quality control aspect that was used at least twice that I recall.

Wait, are you defending the previous version because governors could have simply decided not to open a voting booth??? This is not democratic.
And no debates have ever been held about constitutional amendments before.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Not exactly. A region could delay their voting to allow for discussion if they wanted to. Or kill a flawed amendment by not holding the vote at all and force the Senate to try again. That is all gone now, including that critical quality control aspect that was used at least twice that I recall.

Wait, are you defending the previous version because governors could have simply decided not to open a voting booth??? This is not democratic.
And no debates have ever been held about constitutional amendments before.

Actually there were some discussion threads or in the thread I created to inform the public and regions about the vote. With this there is no thread, because there is no one to inform. A memo is sent from the legislative brance to the SoFE and a vote is immediately held.

Since the abolishment of the ilikeverinship in the Midwest, all the Governors are democratically elected. If the region support the amendment, they can vote out the Governor in favor of one who does.

[windjammer]

Not exactly. A region could delay their voting to allow for discussion if they wanted to. Or kill a flawed amendment by not holding the vote at all and force the Senate to try again. That is all gone now, including that critical quality control aspect that was used at least twice that I recall.

Wait, are you defending the previous version because governors could have simply decided not to open a voting booth??? This is not democratic.
And no debates have ever been held about constitutional amendments before.

Actually there were some discussion threads or in the thread I created to inform the public and regions about the vote. With this there is no thread, because there is no one to inform. A memo is sent from the legislative brance to the SoFE and a vote is immediately held.

Since the abolishment of the ilikeverinship in the Midwest, all the Governors are democratically elected. If the region support the amendment, they can vote out the Governor in favor of one who does.

Still, that's ridiculous to defend the previous version because a governor could simply decide not to bring that to a vote. This is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S and I would call out every governor who would try to behave like this. This is the voters who have to decide, not the governors.

Nothing forbides people to open threads discussing about constitutional amendments, so saying this amendment wouldn't allow debates isn't true.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is for the regions to decide. The South's citizens don't even get to vote on these amendments at all right now. Something I disagreed with, but it is what our elected officials and the region decided to pursue and it is within their right to make it a decision of the legislature. I don't want the Feds coming in here and correcting it for us. We should change it ourselves.

[windjammer]

It is for the regions to decide. The South's citizens don't even get to vote on these amendments at all right now. Something I disagreed with, but it is what our elected officials and the region decided to pursue and it is within their right to make it a decision of the legislature. I don't want the Feds coming in here and correcting it for us. We should change it ourselves.

And this amendment doesn't change the IDS system. The Imperial legislature will still have to vote on the amendment even if the efficient referenda amendment passes.

And you already know that because you were a member of the senate when the effcient referenda amendment...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is for the regions to decide. The South's citizens don't even get to vote on these amendments at all right now. Something I disagreed with, but it is what our elected officials and the region decided to pursue and it is within their right to make it a decision of the legislature. I don't want the Feds coming in here and correcting it for us. We should change it ourselves.

And this amendment doesn't change the IDS system. The Imperial legislature will still have to vote on the amendment even if the efficient referenda amendment passes.

And you already know that because you were a member of the senate when the effcient referenda amendment...

You missed my point. The point is we cannot vote on them (which increases your chances of getting this passed by the way) but I don't seek a Federal remedy to that because it is not their job to fix that. Regional Ratification Booths are a regional responsibility.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yea I wasn't intending to imply that this amendment changed that specifically.

[windjammer]

It is for the regions to decide. The South's citizens don't even get to vote on these amendments at all right now. Something I disagreed with, but it is what our elected officials and the region decided to pursue and it is within their right to make it a decision of the legislature. I don't want the Feds coming in here and correcting it for us. We should change it ourselves.

And this amendment doesn't change the IDS system. The Imperial legislature will still have to vote on the amendment even if the efficient referenda amendment passes.

And you already know that because you were a member of the senate when the effcient referenda amendment...

You missed my point. The point is we cannot vote on them (which increases your chances of getting this passed by the way) but I don't seek a Federal remedy to that because it is not their job to fix that. Regional Ratification Booths are a regional responsibility.

This is amending the federal constitution, so this needs to be  a federal responsiblity. Like the SoFE who is administering the regional senate elections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is for the regions to decide. The South's citizens don't even get to vote on these amendments at all right now. Something I disagreed with, but it is what our elected officials and the region decided to pursue and it is within their right to make it a decision of the legislature. I don't want the Feds coming in here and correcting it for us. We should change it ourselves.

And this amendment doesn't change the IDS system. The Imperial legislature will still have to vote on the amendment even if the efficient referenda amendment passes.

And you already know that because you were a member of the senate when the effcient referenda amendment...

You missed my point. The point is we cannot vote on them (which increases your chances of getting this passed by the way) but I don't seek a Federal remedy to that because it is not their job to fix that. Regional Ratification Booths are a regional responsibility.

This is amending the federal constitution, so this needs to be  a federal responsiblity. Like the SoFE who is administering the regional senate elections.

I actually tried twice to move the Regional Senate elections to being a Regional responsibility as well. It even passed the Senate once if I recall correctly.

Federal, implies a division of power between nationwide and regional. Therefore a Federal Constitution would have to require the input of the regions to remain a federalist system.

And to tell you the truth, will only serve to confirm the fears of regionalists when it comes to the actual proposal before us. It is not a referendum, the Atlasian Constitution cannot be amended by  federal referendum only by two thirds of the Senate and three-fourths of the regions (or by a convention, which also requires 3/4ths of the regions). These are regional ratification booths designed to give the input of the regions on these amendments. Calling this a referendum and saying that it isn't the region's responsibility is what is ridiculous.

[windjammer]

It is for the regions to decide. The South's citizens don't even get to vote on these amendments at all right now. Something I disagreed with, but it is what our elected officials and the region decided to pursue and it is within their right to make it a decision of the legislature. I don't want the Feds coming in here and correcting it for us. We should change it ourselves.

And this amendment doesn't change the IDS system. The Imperial legislature will still have to vote on the amendment even if the efficient referenda amendment passes.

And you already know that because you were a member of the senate when the effcient referenda amendment...

You missed my point. The point is we cannot vote on them (which increases your chances of getting this passed by the way) but I don't seek a Federal remedy to that because it is not their job to fix that. Regional Ratification Booths are a regional responsibility.

This is amending the federal constitution, so this needs to be  a federal responsiblity. Like the SoFE who is administering the regional senate elections.

I actually tried twice to move the Regional Senate elections to being a Regional responsibility as well. It even passed the Senate once if I recall correctly.

Well, so I guess I will never be able to convince you .

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is for the regions to decide. The South's citizens don't even get to vote on these amendments at all right now. Something I disagreed with, but it is what our elected officials and the region decided to pursue and it is within their right to make it a decision of the legislature. I don't want the Feds coming in here and correcting it for us. We should change it ourselves.

And this amendment doesn't change the IDS system. The Imperial legislature will still have to vote on the amendment even if the efficient referenda amendment passes.

And you already know that because you were a member of the senate when the effcient referenda amendment...

You missed my point. The point is we cannot vote on them (which increases your chances of getting this passed by the way) but I don't seek a Federal remedy to that because it is not their job to fix that. Regional Ratification Booths are a regional responsibility.

This is amending the federal constitution, so this needs to be  a federal responsiblity. Like the SoFE who is administering the regional senate elections.

I actually tried twice to move the Regional Senate elections to being a Regional responsibility as well. It even passed the Senate once if I recall correctly.

Well, so I guess I will never be able to convince you .

Since I am suppose to be a pushover, you might still be able to if you keep trying. It not like I keep pushing the same line on every aspect of regionalism as I did six years ago or anything...

[Associate Justice PiT]

Not exactly. A region could delay their voting to allow for discussion if they wanted to. Or kill a flawed amendment by not holding the vote at all and force the Senate to try again. That is all gone now, including that critical quality control aspect that was used at least twice that I recall.

Wait, are you defending the previous version because governors could have simply decided not to open a voting booth??? This is not democratic.
And no debates have ever been held about constitutional amendments before.

Actually there were some discussion threads or in the thread I created to inform the public and regions about the vote. With this there is no thread, because there is no one to inform. A memo is sent from the legislative brance to the SoFE and a vote is immediately held.

Since the abolishment of the ilikeverinship in the Midwest, all the Governors are democratically elected. If the region support the amendment, they can vote out the Governor in favor of one who does.

Still, that's ridiculous to defend the previous version because a governor could simply decide not to bring that to a vote. This is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S and I would call out every governor who would try to behave like this. This is the voters who have to decide, not the governors.

Nothing forbides people to open threads discussing about constitutional amendments, so saying this amendment wouldn't allow debates isn't true.

     There is actually a very valid reason for the chief executive of the region to not open a voting booth, that being that the amendment is fatally flawed and would not operate as intended. I did it as Emperor and I encourage every Governor to do the same should they encounter amendments with serious structural defects.

[Poirot]

There were no debates about constitutional amendments before, and this amendment won't change that. So at least I do hope that those who oppose this amendment will do that honestly. And not using reasons like "blabla we want debates", there was no debates before.

If the Senate wants to modify the text of the constitution about the ratification of amendments, it would be a good opportunity to improve the ratification process at the same time while you are on this topic. The new amendment doesn't include debates or/and giving information and provisions for that could be included. Giving an explanation to the voters about why an amendment is needed and good makes the voters better able to make an informed and intelligent decision. Giving a justification for an amendment is basic information. If there are debates voters can see both sides of an argument, see something they didn't realise on their own. Maybe citizens would be more engaged.

Going to a vote immediatley after it is adopted makes it almost impossible to have a debate before people vote.

Right now amendments are not justified or explained to the public. Like for this amendment there was not even an explanation of what are the changes to the current version, if only one word was changed, if there was a new paragraph, if some words were deleted, if it's completely new, nothing.

I have explained in my first post about three things I could see could be improved. One is debate and maybe it is easier for Senate to just send an amendment to regions and expect people to accept it blindly without even an explanation on what were are voting on.