Determining regulations of Constitutional Convention. (FINAL VOTE)

[Prince of Salem]

My most general idea would be to have delegates selected from all the means possible (by party, by region, by vote, etc.).

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

what about random selection? perhaps restricted to people who have made more than x posts in the atlasia boards over the last week, if necessary?

[Senator Cris]

I am against random selection.
Senators, don't forget to present amendments if you have problems with the current text.

[Classic Conservative]

what about random selection? perhaps restricted to people who have made more than x posts in the atlasia boards over the last week, if necessary?

Random selection is a bad idea it's not fair for some posters and newer posters who might want to we should do it by the legislature, the parties with more than 10 people and the senate.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will not vote for any plan that enacts random or seniority-based delegate selection.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What's needed is radical reform: dissolution of the present legislature, the election of a two-month, caretaker administration, a complete legislative reset, and a completely new and streamlined constitution at the minimum providing for regional consolidation, strong game simulation, and a focus on legislative flexibility and efficiency. Chuck everything out the window and start over-- no mucking about.

Why should throw the future of the country in hands of a unitary executive, however temporary it may be promoted under the notions of caretaker? The Senate, whilst not the operating at its utmost potential, has at various points curbed the excesses and until a successor is elected after the ratification of a new constitution/series of amendments, I must oppose any attempt to dissolve the present government. Such will merely open the door to rogue agents and if this summer has not been a lesson on the need for divided power, I know not what will. This Senate has no power to destroy the game, a rogue caretaker disatisified with the Convention's pace or product can.

Also if one is truly concerned for the welfare of the product of the convention, then it should be of the utmost importance to ensure that the delegates are representative enough to ensure it can garner the necessary support to be ratified. Nothing hinders that more then hasty crafting of selection processes to be sure.

Here we see the very necessity in this debate for this to be ironed out as opposed to being stampeded through.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My most general idea would be to have delegates selected from all the means possible (by party, by region, by vote, etc.).

Indeed, some form of this seems to be the only realistic path. The need for party representation is to ensure that the left isn't left out of the final bargain. For this to work all need to be represented at the table, right left and center. Should anyone of them be missing then one should have no delusions about the success of the reforms, nor even the ratification of what the Convention might produce in such event.

At the same time, we must make sure that indeed that independents have a chance to be represented as well, to be sure.

Random selection poses a great risk for the future of the convention. There are some figures like Griffin, Kalwejt, Classic Conservative, Leinad, Cris, Truman, Duke, etc that should be in attendence simply because they are such leading figures in the reform movement that their absence would be like James Madison or George Washington or Ben Franklin being absent from the Philadelphia convention in 1787. Using a post count has a its limits obviously and opens the door to easy manipulation of whatever standard is set.

[Leinad]

what about random selection? perhaps restricted to people who have made more than x posts in the atlasia boards over the last week, if necessary?

I agree with the others, random selection won't work. I mean, if we went with random selection, there's a chance people like Cris, Truman, Griffin, etc. would be left out, but less deserving people would make it in. I suppose your post criteria would help that, but if it's true that we need to resort to an overly-simplistic measure like this, why not just pick the 25 most active posters in the two Atlasia boards? (Not that I advocate that, mind you, but it's better than random selection.)

Also, in response to Yankee's post, I'm now considering myself the Ben Franklin of Atlasia. Just FYI.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i know random selection isn't a perfect solution, i was proposing it more as a "least-bad" option

[Leinad]

i know random selection isn't a perfect solution, i was proposing it more as a "least-bad" option

That's what I thought, and I get it's merits, but I think that simply doing the top 25 in post count would be a better break-glass-in-case-the-Senate-is-too-stubborn-to-come-up-with-a-good-plan measure (which I don't think will be needed, although it's probably nice to have one).

What's clearly up for debate is how we divide the delegates.

How about this as a compromise regarding the party appointment proposal: we pick the delegates through non-partisan means, but with a quota based on party representation? It achieves the stated goal (every party gets represented proportionally) without the unconventional means of letting party leadership appoint people to an important group like this, and it also makes it easier to integrate independents--something that should be a red line for people on this.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

so something like this, for example?

15 delegates allocated by party:

• 4 top federalists by post count
• 4 top laborites -"-
• 1 top tpp -"-
• 1 top civic renewal -"-
• 3 top members of other parties (includes dr, anus, and nnp)
• 2 independents

5 delegates allocated by post count, excluding people who have already been chosen

[Classic Conservative]

Post counts benefit people that haven't been here for a long time like Leinad, myself and others, it doesn't benefit Clarence or others who have come back. It only benefits long time posters like yourself, Yankee, Cris, Kal and others. I urge the Senate not to take up post counts. As they are ridiculously unfair.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Post counts benefit people that haven't been here for a long time like Leinad, myself and others, it doesn't benefit Clarence or others who have come back. It only benefits long time posters like yourself, Yankee, Cris, Kal and others. I urge the Senate not to take up post counts. As they are ridiculously unfair.

we're talking about posts over the last week (or some other time interval, who knows)

read the thread before commenting pls

[Classic Conservative]

Post counts benefit people that haven't been here for a long time like Leinad, myself and others, it doesn't benefit Clarence or others who have come back. It only benefits long time posters like yourself, Yankee, Cris, Kal and others. I urge the Senate not to take up post counts. As they are ridiculously unfair.

we're talking about posts over the last week (or some other time interval, who knows)

read the thread before commenting pls

I have read the thread multiple times, but still this idea still just doesn't make any sense why would give people positions in a Constitutional Convention by how many posts they made.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Post counts benefit people that haven't been here for a long time like Leinad, myself and others, it doesn't benefit Clarence or others who have come back. It only benefits long time posters like yourself, Yankee, Cris, Kal and others. I urge the Senate not to take up post counts. As they are ridiculously unfair.

we're talking about posts over the last week (or some other time interval, who knows)

read the thread before commenting pls

I have read the thread multiple times, but still this idea still just doesn't make any sense why would give people positions in a Constitutional Convention by how many posts they made.

it's a measure of activity...

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Apart from combining Sections 3 and 4 of the current bill into a single Article (and a few grammatical and stylistic changes), this amendment deals primarily with the selection of the delegates. Broadly speaking, there would be three classes of delegates:

-15 Delegates are to be elected by the citizens of the Regions, divided proportionally according to population;
-5 Delegates are to be selected by the Senate, in the same manner as before;
-5 Delegates selected from the parties by the Senate (2 progressives, 2 conservatives, 1 centrist)

The biggest change here would be that the party delegates are selected by the Senate, not by the party chairmen (thus ensuring that political maneuvering does not play a part in delegate selection while still providing ideological balance). I would be open to amending this model, but I think it's a good starting point.

[rpryor03]

I support the Truman amendment, and would like to take this opportunity to welcome him to the Senate.

[Senator Cris]

Senators have 24 hours to object.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I support the Truman amendment, and would like to take this opportunity to welcome him to the Senate.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

this senate should not be picking nearly half the delegates. terrible amendment.

[Classic Conservative]

this senate should not be picking nearly half the delegates. terrible amendment.

Nobody even likes your idea about random selection and the majority of active posters like this idea and if you didn't like this Admendment maybe you should tried harder to get elected.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

this senate should not be picking nearly half the delegates. terrible amendment.

Nobody even likes your idea about random selection and the majority of active posters like this idea and if you didn't like this Admendment maybe you should tried harder to get elected.

go back to your neonazi rally or whatever kthx

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A good amendment, though 25 delegates is kind of a lot. Along with a quorum requirement, this could spell trouble.

[Classic Conservative]

this senate should not be picking nearly half the delegates. terrible amendment.

Nobody even likes your idea about random selection and the majority of active posters like this idea and if you didn't like this Admendment maybe you should tried harder to get elected.

go back to your neonazi rally or whatever kthx

I'm the neonazi here, look who's talking you commie.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

     A good amendment, though 25 delegates is kind of a lot. Along with a quorum requirement, this could spell trouble.

Fair point, though I think we could find 25 active players without too much trouble. Off the top of my head, Griffin, Duke, Windjammer, Leinad, Classic Conservative, Pikachu, Clarence, Simfan, Dkrol, Evergreen, Clyde, and DemPGH might easily be interested - we would only need a few more to get to twenty, and I doubt we'll have a problem finding five interested senators.