Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seconded.

[Clyde1998]

proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I object to evergreen's proposed amendment.

This amendment sets a dangerous precedent.  All regions are part of one nation, and therefore the federal government, which represents the entire nation, should have input into such an important and far reaching action as secession. 

Seceding from the nation should not be a simple procedure.  There should be more input in this matter than, for example, a referendum in the region that passes by one vote, or whatever.

The United Nations charter supports self-determination, should the voters of an area want that. It would be undemocratic to deny the rights of a region to become independent.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is an Admendment.

I will, obviously, object to this.

[Clyde1998]

I personally prefer three regions.

When it comes to secession I think the two extremes here are both stupid. If a region wishes to secede it should be able to do so, through fair and proper procedure. Completely banning the concept or saying we shouldn't interfere, ever, are both shortsighted approaches.

     Perhaps allow it, but at a high threshold? When 90% of people in a region support secession (i.e. Slovenia), telling them that they're not allowed to is meaningless; the will is there to just do it anyway.

I think it should be a turnout threshold among eligible voters. For example, the Northeast has a law stating that voters must have made ten posts in the previous 56 days for their vote to be eligible - those who have met that requirement would be included in the turnout figure, but not those who haven't met the threshold.

[Clyde1998]

i object in the strongest possible way

the right to self-determination is recognised worldwide as a fundamental human right, and i can't support a constitution that utterly destroys it like this.

Agreed - it would be undemocratic to deny self-determination.

[Clyde1998]

Nay

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Abstain - I don't believe that the President or the Senate should be able to veto the results of a democratic vote; however I believe that secession should be possible - should the voters in a region vote for it.

[Clyde1998]

Would it just be easier to vote on all of the amendments - rather than waiting for the inevitable objections? It would speed things up.

[Clyde1998]

Aye

[Clyde1998]

Aye

[Clyde1998]

Aye guess.

I second the motion for a simple "Should secession be legal?" ballot to settle this issue and see those of us who value democracy and human rights can best proceed.

Thirded. We should have a 'principle' vote - before moving into how to implement it.

[Clyde1998]

Aye guess.

I second the motion for a simple "Should secession be legal?" ballot to settle this issue and see those of us who value democracy and human rights can best proceed.

Thirded. We should have a 'principle' vote - before moving into how to implement it.

This exactly - I would suggest doing this as soon as the current vote is over.

I'd like to remember that after this amendment there is a Clyde's amendment and a Tmthforu's amendment.
I planned to do that after the vote on these two amendments (if both won't pass) but if both Clyde and Tmthforu want to withdraw their amendments,  I'll hold this vote soon. But I can't force them to withdraw their amendments if they don't want.

I'd prefer to hold the principle vote before voting on my amendment - if the principle vote goes against succession, then I'll withdraw it.

[Clyde1998]

Now, it's time for a principle vote on secession. I'm including the Abstain option because it's included in every vote of every contest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't 0 and 1 the same thing in practice...?

[Clyde1998]

Nay

[Clyde1998]

Nay

[Clyde1998]

I can't remember if I've voted on this or not - Nay if I haven't

[Clyde1998]

I also object.

We already have lots of states that are uninhabited already - so adding new 'jurisdictions' to the game would leave more uninhabited. I feel 50 states + DC + PR is enough.

[Clyde1998]

Nay

[Clyde1998]

Nay
Should be turnout based - as if only one person voted (and it was a vote in favour) it would be over 75% in favour. A 60% turnout of eligible voters would be my preference.

[Clyde1998]

Just to confirm - after final Constitution has been approved by the delegates, does it go to a public vote on the proposed constitution?

[Clyde1998]

Region A (blue) West
Region B (green) South
Region C (red) Northeast

[Clyde1998]

Truman hasn't opened the voting yet, right? Why is everyone suggesting the same things over and over again?

Anyway, I suggest to the Presiding Officer that there be two votes: one for the starting names, and another for whether the regions are allowed to change the names or not.

And while I'm at it, this is a good a time to bring it up as any: I presume the three new regions will have constitutional conventions of their own, right? Are there any details set up for that? If not, that should be defined in some way.

He's opened up for name suggestions - I think. However, it would be much easier to just hold the vote on the region names now.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.