Determining regulations of Constitutional Convention. (FINAL VOTE)

[Senator Cris]

The petition for a Constitutional Convention has reached enough signatures in the regions of Northeast, Pacific and South.

According to the Constitution, now the Senate will determine regulations of Constitutional Convention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suggest to start with a debate and then propose our amendments.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     We should probably start by specifying regulations concerning delegates. This would include methods of selection, qualifications, activity requirements, &c.

[Senator Cris]

In the last Constitutional Convention, there were 20 delegates, all selected by the regions.
Personally, I think that 20 delegates is a good number. I'd prefer something like 5 Senators selected by the Senate and 15 delegated selected by the regions.
I also think that the number of delegates that are up to regions should be decided according to a proportional criteria.

[Lumine]

Seems good enough for me, five active Senators and the rest from the regions. Originally I would have advocated for three for each region, but indeed we might want to look at proportionality.

Also, we should be able to draw inspiration on the past rules, so in that sense I feel we need to set guidelines for a Presiding Officer to behave and be elected.

[pikachu]

If I may, I'd like to add my thoughts on this...

I do like the idea for proportionality, so how should we go about allocating the spots? Purely by population, or maybe by vote participation rates in recent federal elections?

Also, how will regional delegated be appointed? Will this vary by region or will there be a uniform method (appointments by governors, appointment by regional assemblies, election, or some other method)?

Just some questions I feel are worth considering.

[Senator Cris]

Some ideas:

- 21 delegates (5 from Senate, others from regions)
- Regional delegates selected by legislatures or with an elections. All citizens of that region, not only office holders, can be delegates.
- Delegates will elect a Presiding Officer
- Each delegate can propose a topic of discussion, then the Presiding Officer will open a thread
- In that thread there are discussions, votes (like the Senate with amendments, objections) and a final vote. With a final vote, the change to the Constitution on that matter is official.
- At the end of the ConCon, the regions will vote on all changes (it's already planned by the Constitution)

[Adam Griffin]

Partisan affiliation within the game should play at least some role in how delegates are selected; otherwise, this will quickly end up being a right-wing circle jerk. I'd propose a 10-member minimum for major party status in this criteria, with 10/20 delegates being selected by the parties. There are 96 citizens belonging to parties with 10 or more members, making the math somewhat simple:

Fed: 36/9.6 = 3.75
Lab: 35/9.6 = 3.64
TPP: 15/9.6 = 1.56
CR: 10/9.6 = 1.04

Every party would need at least one representative, and since Fed & Lab each are the 2 parties closest to rounding up, you'd end up with:

Fed: 4
Lab: 4
TPP: 1
CR: 1


With the remaining 10, you could either allow each Governor to appoint 2 delegates, or you could allow the Senate to appoint 5 delegates and allow each Governor to appoint 1 delegate, for a total of 20 delegates.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think 5 Senators would be fine, especially given that we're pretty much the only active federal institution (apart from the DoFE) at the moment

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I actually sympathize with Griffin's concern. If the delegates do not include a number of Laborite and other leftist voices, then this convention will surely fail. I also think Griffin should be one of the delegates himself obviously.

[Senator Cris]

I actually sympathize with Griffin's concern. If the delegates do not include a number of Laborite and other leftist voices, then this convention will surely fail. I also think Griffin should be one of the delegates himself obviously.

Me too.

[Cassius]

Agreed with Yankee.

[Classic Conservative]

You guys should also address regions like the Pacific and the Midwest since they're low on activity and we need delegates from there. I like Griffins idea also but we should try to equal spilt them up between every region.

[Lumine]

Hmmmm... I have to agree with Griffin as well, I think the ideal could be 10 from the parties, 10 from the Governors and 5 from the Senate as suggested.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well Griffin, your thoughts on Lumine's proposal?

You guys should also address regions like the Pacific and the Midwest since they're low on activity and we need delegates from there. I like Griffins idea also but we should try to equal spilt them up between every region.

Definately. Any convention that lacked you and Cris would be a travesty as well.

Also two from each region would make it more practical since the Pacific and Midwest might struggled to find 4 people people each.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You guys should also address regions like the Pacific and the Midwest since they're low on activity and we need delegates from there. I like Griffins idea also but we should try to equal spilt them up between every region.

     We could try to address both concerns at once and count people two-fer. For example, Griffin would be counted as both a Labor delegate and a Southern delegate. We'll have some extras so we don't have to pigeonhole people and select them just for the right combo of party and region, but it would put less strain on the less active regions to staff the convention.

[Senator Cris]

10 Parties
10 Regions (2 per region)
5 Senate

I'm ok with 2 per region. I think all regions can find 2 active citizens. But I have doubts about the Midwest. The regional government is inactive from August 12.
In that case, I'd be ok with being a regional delegate from the Midwest, instead of a delegate selected by the Senate.

[Senator Cris]

An amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm presenting this amendment now because in the next week I will not be able to work with my PC.
Obviously these are only my ideas and it can be modified with other amendments. Also the language might be not so great. But at least this amendment is a starting point, so I invite my colleagues to not object to it in the next 24 hours and then change it with other amendments.

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[windjammer]

Would it be possible to need only the majority of the regions to approve the deal instead 4/5? I'm afraid some people could try to derail the deal.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Would it be possible to need only the majority of the regions to approve the deal instead 4/5? I'm afraid some people could try to derail the deal.

Not without another Constitutional Amendment.

I think Cris' amendment is a good starting point. I think it would be a good idea to base the number of delegates allocated to each Region on its population. Otherwise, you could be left with a scenario where the Pacific struggles to find two active delegates while interested citizens in the Northeast or Mideast are excluded.

[bore]

I'm inclined to say that the ConCon should be as representative as possible of atlasia as it is now, so I think that carving out different amounts of delegates for different interest groups like the senate or the governors or the parties should be avoided.

Why not just have 25 delegates decided by a whole nation vote?

[Classic Conservative]

I don't think Bores idea is one possible two feasible and three shouldn't happen. The other system in place makes more sense. It ones makes sure it's not even close to partisan, let's the regional legislature decide on who would be the best for their own region. And lastly lets more active members get in their instead of somebody from ANUS or NNP who's main goals are to kill and tear the game apart.


Oh and Bore reopen the stock markets now.

[bore]

I don't think Bores idea is one possible two feasible and three shouldn't happen. The other system in place makes more sense. It ones makes sure it's not even close to partisan, let's the regional legislature decide on who would be the best for their own region. And lastly lets more active members get in their instead of somebody from ANUS or NNP who's main goals are to kill and tear the game apart.


Oh and Bore reopen the stock markets now.

lol

I doubt atlasia has more than 25 active members so I'd be surprised if there are any active members who want to be in the ConCon but are frozen out, for instance even the supposedly superactive senate is half dead in terms of membership. By making people who want to serve actively have to announce their candidacy and face an election you will actually get more active people, as opposed to a governor or chairman choosing inactive hacks.

Going through your (attempted?) list of why you don't like my suggestion, it's obviously possible, feasible means the same thing as possible and shouldn't happen is just you saying you don't like it, which we already knew.

As for your defence of the other proposal, the idea that it's less partisan is laughable, as it literally involves party chairman choosing seats, along with both a senate and governors who are just as, if not far more, partisan than voters.

[Classic Conservative]

I don't think Bores idea is one possible two feasible and three shouldn't happen. The other system in place makes more sense. It ones makes sure it's not even close to partisan, let's the regional legislature decide on who would be the best for their own region. And lastly lets more active members get in their instead of somebody from ANUS or NNP who's main goals are to kill and tear the game apart.


Oh and Bore reopen the stock markets now.

lol

I doubt atlasia has more than 25 active members so I'd be surprised if there are any active members who want to be in the ConCon but are frozen out, for instance even the supposedly superactive senate is half dead in terms of membership. By making people who want to serve actively have to announce their candidacy and face an election you will actually get more active people, as opposed to a governor or chairman choosing inactive hacks.

Going through your (attempted?) list of why you don't like my suggestion, it's obviously possible, feasible means the same thing as possible and shouldn't happen is just you saying you don't like it, which we already knew.

As for your defence of the other proposal, the idea that it's less partisan is laughable, as it literally involves party chairman choosing seats, along with both a senate and governors who are just as, if not far more, partisan than voters.

Look who's talking about being active? The problem is people are more likely to only vote yes for the people who share their ideology.

[bore]

I don't think Bores idea is one possible two feasible and three shouldn't happen. The other system in place makes more sense. It ones makes sure it's not even close to partisan, let's the regional legislature decide on who would be the best for their own region. And lastly lets more active members get in their instead of somebody from ANUS or NNP who's main goals are to kill and tear the game apart.


Oh and Bore reopen the stock markets now.

lol

I doubt atlasia has more than 25 active members so I'd be surprised if there are any active members who want to be in the ConCon but are frozen out, for instance even the supposedly superactive senate is half dead in terms of membership. By making people who want to serve actively have to announce their candidacy and face an election you will actually get more active people, as opposed to a governor or chairman choosing inactive hacks.

Going through your (attempted?) list of why you don't like my suggestion, it's obviously possible, feasible means the same thing as possible and shouldn't happen is just you saying you don't like it, which we already knew.

As for your defence of the other proposal, the idea that it's less partisan is laughable, as it literally involves party chairman choosing seats, along with both a senate and governors who are just as, if not far more, partisan than voters.

Look who's talking about being active? The problem is people are more likely to only vote yes for the people who share their ideology.

I've never been fond of or led the activity crusade (and my past record can confirm this) but you're right that I do object to the strong whiff of hypocrisy from certain people who take every opportunity to whinge about my lack of activity and then ignore the beam in their own.

Anyway the problem you've identified is the reason I advocated for a simple system in the first place, that the ConCon will reflect the ideology of atlasia.

[Oakvale]

It's abundantly clear that this, the worst Senate in Atlasian history, should not have a hand in choosing the delegates to such an important convention. It is also astounding that people are arguing that political parties should be excluded from the process because of their ideology - RIP democracy.