Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[tmthforu94]

I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:



Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?

the blue region would have probably 85-90% of activity. this is a silly map.

Maps have been a contentious area of the debate for years. I would caution the delegates from becoming too fixated on a detail that has little impact in reality. Yes, a majority of individuals live in the blue region. However, I would assume (as has been proposed in the past) that all citizens will have the opportunity to have one free move, should a reduction in regions occur. This should hopefully counter concerns of one region becoming too overpopulated, though unless we put initial caps on the regions, may be uncontrollable.

Something to think about.

[tmthforu94]

Nay to Classic Conservative's amendment.

[tmthforu94]

It surprises how individuals who have claimed to advocate for regional rights for years are now voting AGAINST regional rights on one of the most important votes related to it we have seen.

[tmthforu94]

I agree with Duke what's the point of having a country if everyone can just say I'm bored let's have blank region leave and form our own nation.

If EVERYONE wants that, they should have the ability to do so - there should definitely be safeguards in place to ensure this can only happen if the vast majority choose to do so, but the REGIONS should have the RIGHT to do so.

I don't see this as a huge deal, because with three regions we are likely to have three pretty ideologically diverse regions, so the chances that enough people come together to secede are pretty low.

[tmthforu94]

I oppose NeverAgain's amendment. Should a region choose to secede, they should not have to go through the senate, much less the president, to do so.

[tmthforu94]

Just make a confederation of states that all have their own autonomy and be done with it.

That isn't a terrible idea. Perhaps create it in a way where the federal governments role is simple: monitor the regions.

[tmthforu94]

Aye, only because it is a step in the right direction. Still not ideal, though.

[tmthforu94]

I oppose NeverAgain's amendment as well, for the same reason that Tmth opposed it. BUT, I think it's the best idea so far.

Therefore, Mr. Presiding Officer, I'd like to propose this amendment (presumably to be voted on after NeverAgain's):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd also be willing to add an emergency clause--perhaps that the federal government (however we decide to set that up) can overturn this with, say, a four-fifths majority of the senate. Or maybe a different safeguard--perhaps the governor has to approve it, or it can be overturned if one senator from each region agrees. And then I'd be willing to add a counter to that--if it passes the referendum by, say, a three-fourths vote, it will go through anyway.

Of course, these numbers are just placeholders. The point is that the right to self-determination isn't infringed, but it needs to be by more than a 50%+1 margin. It's all about checks and balances, people.

Just to clarify on this amendment, would this be a national vote or a regional vote?

[tmthforu94]

Honestly, I'm going to come out and say that I don't think three-fifths of the vote in a region is enough to grant independence. I think the option should be there, but three-fifths is far too low for such an important issue. I would say 2/3s at least, maybe even 3/4s.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

Aye

Regardless of whether or not you like the idea of secession, a procedure should be in place if the vast majority of a region ever feels that their rights are being trampled on and secession is the only way to create progress.

[tmthforu94]

I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I have said, this isn't about whether or not you support secession. It is merely about putting a process in place. I have proposed strict guidelines because I don't think secession should be easy. If 3/4s of a region want to secede, especially considering we are likely to have two-three diverse regions, rather then five currently, I think there should be a process in place that allows for them to.

I find this to be a reasonable compromise between what both sides are asking for. I urge others to withdraw their amendments and lets vote on this one.

[tmthforu94]

Going forward, when making decisions on secession, I would like to remind delegates that a majority of Atlasians recently polled SUPPORT having a clause in the constitution that establishes a process for secession, and the vast majority of citizens who have publicly spoken on the issue also support it.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=221165.0

[tmthforu94]

I will withdraw my amendment for the time being in order to allow a principle vote to occur. I hope that delegates respect the will of The People.

[tmthforu94]

I will withdraw my amendment for the time being in order to allow a principle vote to occur. I hope that delegates respect the will of The People.

There will not be a public election. Only ConCon delegates will vote on it.

I am aware of how the rules work. I am referencing a recent poll done where a majority of respondents supported including a clause for secession.

[tmthforu94]

Yes, because I respect the will of the people and don't want a legal mess on our hands in the future.

[tmthforu94]

I will do my best to make sure voters are aware next weekend of who is respecting The People's will and who isn't.

[tmthforu94]

How much longer is this secessionist circus going to go on?

Until the secessionist advocates keep on offering amendment after amendment after amendment until they get their own way?

...

We are during a principle vote right now...which was originally suggested by myself and others over a week ago.

[tmthforu94]

I would say adopt three regions, then do a quick vote on which region certain states should be in. For example, thinking of population centers, it would make more sense for Kansas to be linked with Missouri and Oklahoma.

[tmthforu94]

I urge the existence of 4 regions.

     The geography of Atlasia does lend itself rather naturally to four regions. Especially if one abandons the notion of equal states in each region, which wasn't even actually followed once we introduced Puerto Rico and Oceania to the mixed.

Simply playing devils advocate, I don't think it is necessary that every region has an equal number of states - including D.C., this map has between 12-14 states in each region and looks aesthetically pleasing. It also, for the most part, keeps each state in a region most identifiable to its people.

[tmthforu94]

[5] 0
[6] 1
[3] 2
[1] 3
[2] 4
[4] 5

[tmthforu94]

I think there's a place for regions in the game. Eliminating regions, or the federal government, would be a terrible mistake.

Why?  Provide positive evidence for your assertion that such a system is a good idea.  You have provided evidence against your idea, which is an intriguing rhetorical angle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the idea is that with less regions and positions, elections would become more competitive. I would point to the Northeast now or how the Mideast used to be a year or so ago - heck, once we had 11 candidates running for 5 spots in the Assembly. If we can establish three regions that look like that, I think it is inherently a good thing.

[tmthforu94]

Two things:
1. I don't think it is necessary to say "the first region, the second region, etc."
2. Naming regions after any sort of figure is confusing and weird. Just stick with directions - north, south and west. If we start naming after people we're going to have the Airport Renaming Act all over again...

[tmthforu94]

NayVoting Aye because I don't want to be an obstructionist, but I have reservations that are listed below...

Considering the entire premise of this amendment is determining where the regions are going and what they will be named, it doesn't make sense to be adopting this if you just plan on making amendments down the road.

For me, having Kansas in the Pacific is a bit of a non-starter in terms of the map (though it won't affect my final vote on the constitution). While I understand the argument geographically, when you consider that over 80% of the population is on the east and south side of the state, it would be absolutely terrible for the state if it were put in a separate region from Oklahoma and Kansas. I understand it may be small to some, but as the only person in here that is actually from the state, I know that if this were adopted in reality, well, it wouldn't be adopted in reality, because people would point out what a terrible decision it would be. I understand that some don't think it is a big issue, but for practically reasons, it would undoubtedly hurt the citizens in the state that I come from.

Additionally, as I said before, states shouldn't be named after historical figures - think how confusing it will be to new members when we say "you're in the Fremont region" - especially those who aren't from America! Keep it simple - North, Southeast (IDS), and West.

[tmthforu94]

Introducing this amendment first, then hope to follow up with another that will discuss regional names, because I don't think we've came to a full consensus on that yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are two changes here:
1. I don't like the idea of numbering the regions - I think it sends somewhat of a message that one region is being put over another. This is a concern I raised before but was not addressed, so if someone comes up with a  strong argument why "first, second,third" is better than how I worded it, I'll entertain it.
2. Moving Kansas to the South. I understand that there is a desire to try and keep the number of regions balanced, but 1)I don't think it looks better or difference on the prettiness scale, which a lot of people are going off of, and 2) most importantly, considering the population centers and economics of each state, it would be terrible to separate Kansas from Oklahoma and Missouri. I understand that Kansas is generally considered a part of the "Great Plains", which includes the Dakotas and Nebraska, but we are MUCH close to Missouri and Oklahoma in reality. Kansas has historically had low populations of registered Atlasians and with re-registering likely taking place, doing this won't have any sort of negative effect on the game. It just makes more sense economically, and I hope folks will understand that. This puts the South ahead 18-16-16, rather than 17-17-16, so ultimately they remain pretty even. I wish I had been involved more in CARCA and I would have pointed this out then - I know it is something I've mentioned before.

I don't mean to bog the process down, and as I see both of these as uncontroversial, I ask that there are no objections and we can proceed to discussing the naming of the regions and other relevant topics. If someone comes up with a valid reason for having "first, second, third," I will friendly that portion out of the amendment. Thanks.