Constitutional Convention - Commentary thread.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Here's a novel idea.

How about more input from, oh, I don't know, maybe from THE PEOPLE!

Pass an AMENDMENT in the Senate increasing the number of delegates from 25 to 31, so there will be 10 from the Senate, 21 from THE PEOPLE, so THE PEOPLE have more input.

Four of the 21 delegates elected by the people are to be independents.

Duh!

Won't 2/3s be required to pass anything? That should have been the ratio, not 60/40. Now the Senate can block something if they don't like it. And they get to select which partisan members get into there? Sounds like cronyism to me!

No, it requires 3/5.
The Senate inserted the partisan selection only because the electorate was more balanced toward a party than the registered voters numbers.

this is such bad logic. if you have a group of people that is unbalanced politically (let's say, for example, seven right-wingers, two left-wingers and a centrist) the best way to balance that group is by adding people unbalanced in the opposite way (7-1-2 + 0-7-5 = 7-8-7), not by adding a balanced group of people (7-1-2 + 4-4-4 = 11-5-6)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the senate is choosing them unilaterally, is the point.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

So, the voting's over, right? It's been over 48 hours since it was opened, and Homely said exactly 48 hours.

northeast: oakvale, winfield, rgn, clyde
mideast: jcl, windjammer, neveragain, vivaportugalhabs
southeast: leinad, nc yankee, griffin
midwest: cris, marokai
pacific: simfan, classic conservative

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I still do not agree, nor will I ever agree, that the Senate should be picking 10 out of the 25 delegates.

I KNOW it cannot be changed now, but that is still my view.

The Senate should only have been picking 5 out of the 25 delegates.

0 really

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

These are the people writing our new Constitution

Northeast: Oakvale, Winfield, RGN08, Clyde1998
Mideast: JCL, Windjammer, vivaportugalhabs, NeverAgain
South: NCYankee, Leinad, Adam Griffin
Midwest: Cris, Marokai
Pacific: Simfan, Classic Conservative
Senators: Kalwejt, Lumine, RPryor, Harry S Truman, PiT
conservative: Tmthforu94, Clark Kent
progressive: Bore, evergreen
centrist: (to be determined; BMotley and pikachu currently tied with 2 votes each)

At least 17 of these 25 esteemed delegates must vote in favor of the final draft for it to pass

or, in other words, a group of 9 anti-reformists can block any significant change from happening.

rip in peace constitutional convention, rip in peace atlasia.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Maybe that's because the current batch of senators have been among the foremost advocates for game reform?

hahahhha what

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I assume this will be a lost cause since it's utterly dominated by ultra-conservatives (in the 'game reform' sense) of various affiliations like Yankee, Kalwejt, PiT, CLASSIC CONSERVATIVE, various Labor zombies etc etc etc but I will try my utmost to represent the people shut out of the convention by the undemocratic Senate.

yes, yes, it's very democratic to unilaterally seize control of almost half the delegate positions, we know.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I assume this will be a lost cause since it's utterly dominated by ultra-conservatives (in the 'game reform' sense) of various affiliations like Yankee, Kalwejt, PiT, CLASSIC CONSERVATIVE, various Labor zombies etc etc etc but I will try my utmost to represent the people shut out of the convention by the undemocratic Senate.

yes, yes, it's very democratic to unilaterally seize control of almost half the delegate positions, we know.

Looks like it's a lost cause.

yes, congratulations on making sure of that

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I assume this will be a lost cause since it's utterly dominated by ultra-conservatives (in the 'game reform' sense) of various affiliations like Yankee, Kalwejt, PiT, CLASSIC CONSERVATIVE, various Labor zombies etc etc etc but I will try my utmost to represent the people shut out of the convention by the undemocratic Senate.

yes, yes, it's very democratic to unilaterally seize control of almost half the delegate positions, we know.

I love how Evergreen is accusing the Senate of being "undemocratic" when she literally suggested choosing delegates based on post count.

this is a red herring, obviously. seizing a power for yourself is a very different thing from leaving it to purely meritocratic criteria. (not to mention, of course, that that wasn't, in fact, my final proposal)

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It's time for me to take Kal's place.

Sorry Duke, but you do not qualify.

Kalwejt was one of 5 Senators elected by the Senate, as per the rules of delegate selection. 

His replacement must be a sitting Senator.

well, not quite.

the only thing in the regulations about vacancies is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which refers specifically to regional delegates only. in other words, there is no procedure for filling kalwejt's seat

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It's time for me to take Kal's place.

Sorry Duke, but you do not qualify.

Kalwejt was one of 5 Senators elected by the Senate, as per the rules of delegate selection. 

His replacement must be a sitting Senator.

well, not quite.

the only thing in the regulations about vacancies is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

which refers specifically to regional delegates only. in other words, there is no procedure for filling kalwejt's seat

So if in fact there is no legal procedure for filling this seat, like you say, that makes matters even worse.  The vacancy cannot then be filled legally.  And if this is in fact the case, we cannot go making exceptions to the law.  The Con Con would then lose credibility.

indeed.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Adam Griffin (has a credible plan but will ultimately be concerned with sustaining indefinitely the failed communist system)

Lmao

1. Write-in: Harry S. Truman
2. Cris
3. oakvale
4. Leinad

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Adam Griffin (has a credible plan but will ultimately be concerned with sustaining indefinitely the failed communist system)

Lmao

1. Write-in: Harry S. Truman
2. Cris
3. oakvale
4. Leinad

Wait, I'm a communist now? The Jacobins are getting desperate, it seems. Thus far, I've been accused of being a "fascist," a "conservative," and a "communist," all in the span of two weeks!

i'm speaking more about the "failed system" part, which is indisputable

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

hahaha are you seriously trying to claim that oakvale represents the status quo and you and cris don't

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

hahaha are you seriously trying to claim that oakvale represents the status quo and you and cris don't

Yes, I am. It makes no sense for Oakvale to claim that he is less entrenched in the current system, and less responsible for what it has become, than someone who joined this game 10 months ago. He's free to offer alternative solutions to the current crisis - in fact, I encourage it - but the charge that I am some sort of establishment figure is clearly ridiculous. Do you really expect people to believe that a man who has been registered with the Census Bureau for 5+ years, who was prominent enough to be a presidential candidate in 2011, and who has held the same office for two years straight is the 'agent of change'? In any case, anyone who has payed even the slightest attention to what Cris, I, and others have said and done over the last four months knows that we support radical changes to the system: the world is not divided between secessionists and statists.

i'm honestly baffled as to how a smart person like you could make such an incredibly dumb post.

1.  the supreme court doesn't actually have any significant amount of power w/r/t game reform issues. or at all, really.

2. xahar was registered 5 years ago. so was snowstalker. are you claiming they wouldn't be outsiders today?

3. you're a senator who aligns with the game-reform views of most, if not all, of the senate. you're an establishment figure.

4. what offices or histories you two have is entirely irrelevant anyway - your policies are the policies of the status quo, and oakvale's decidedly aren't.

5. changing the number of regions doesn't qualify as "radical changes to the system."

6. existing in a system is a different thing from supporting it or contributing to its continuation. your whole argument reminds me of the old "a ~real~ socialist would stop using all products produced by capitalism" trope.