Senate Residency Requirement Amendment

[12th Doctor]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?

We should strive to make sure that it doesn't and one way that we could do that is by passing this.

[12th Doctor]

I will be honest right now, I have a plan towards ending our population problem.  This is the first step.

Step 2:  If elected President, create a commision to reach out to others on the net to bring in more citizens.

Step 3: Once we have reached a higher population point, expand the both the number of districts and regions.

But we need this first.

[Gabu]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?

We should strive to make sure that it doesn't and one way that we could do that is by passing this.

If we had this in place, we wouldn't have had any good candidates to challenge NixonNow, or am I thinking of a different episode with King?

[12th Doctor]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?

We should strive to make sure that it doesn't and one way that we could do that is by passing this.

If we had this in place, we wouldn't have had any good candidates to challenge NixonNow, or am I thinking of a different episode with King?

No, the same, but that misses the point, I think.  I misused a word here, I did not mean "right" so much as "acceptable" (a word I rarely use and does not figure prominantly in my vocab).  It was "acceptable" for King at the time, because there were so few contested races, there were no laws against it, and NixonNow was a well known and contraversial candidate.  But if we are going to set things right for the future, we cannot accept this anymore.

All this sets a bad precedent, regardless of the outcome of the race.

[Gabu]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?

We should strive to make sure that it doesn't and one way that we could do that is by passing this.

If we had this in place, we wouldn't have had any good candidates to challenge NixonNow, or am I thinking of a different episode with King?

No, the same, but that misses the point, I think.  I misused a word here, I did not mean "right" so much as "acceptable" (a word I rarely use and does not figure prominantly in my vocab).  It was "acceptable" for King at the time, because there were so few contested races, there were no laws against it, and NixonNow was a well known and contraversial candidate.  But if we are going to set things right for the future, we cannot accept this anymore.

All this sets a bad precedent, regardless of the outcome of the race.

Well, I still haven't gotten an answer to the question regarding why the residents of a certain district would not be better at figuring out who they want to represent them than the federal government.  It seems to me that this bill would prevent people in a region from getting the representative that they really want purely because there are no good candidates.  If there is a good candidate from the region and someone tries to carpetbag, wouldn't it be simple enough for them to simply not elect the carpetbagger?

[12th Doctor]

Please understand that this is not an "Anti-King Law".  What he did was right for his time.

You have a point regarding lesser-known people, but I'm curious of this: if you think that what King did was right, then why are you suggesting we ban such an act?

Also, after thinking about it for a moment, couldn't lesser-known people just become more well-known?  It's not very hard to do so.

What I am saying is that what he did was right for his time, because of the dirth of candidates that were running in that particular election.

Couldn't the same sort of scenario arise again?

We should strive to make sure that it doesn't and one way that we could do that is by passing this.

If we had this in place, we wouldn't have had any good candidates to challenge NixonNow, or am I thinking of a different episode with King?

No, the same, but that misses the point, I think.  I misused a word here, I did not mean "right" so much as "acceptable" (a word I rarely use and does not figure prominantly in my vocab).  It was "acceptable" for King at the time, because there were so few contested races, there were no laws against it, and NixonNow was a well known and contraversial candidate.  But if we are going to set things right for the future, we cannot accept this anymore.

All this sets a bad precedent, regardless of the outcome of the race.

Well, I still haven't gotten an answer to the question regarding why the residents of a certain district would not be better at figuring out who they want to represent them than the federal government.  It seems to me that this bill would prevent people in a region from getting the representative that they really want purely because there are no good candidates.  If there is a good candidate from the region and someone tries to carpetbag, wouldn't it be simple enough for them to simply not elect the carpetbagger?

Once again, I seem to have failed to express myself...

"Good" candidate is a subjective term.  A region might have five unknown candidates who are running who would make good Senators, but we don't know that until they have acctually been in office.  Meanwhile, someone who is better known could simply jump in and crush all five of them, because people are naturally going to give them preferencial treatment, esspecially if they come from a party that has a lot of strength in that area.

We aren't taking away antones right to choose, we are making sure that these senarios don't ever take place, thus, paradoxically, givin people more freedom to choose, by allowing for wider fields or candidates who are on better par with one another.

I know that doesn't quite answer your question, but I think the premise of your question should not be treated as the main focus, rather that these senarios do and will continue to happen.

[12th Doctor]

Well, it has been 24 hours and no one has changed their minds.  Looks likes this has died a horrible death.

[Gabu]

Well, it doesn't look like anyone else is paying attention, so it's not like my changing my vote would affect anything, anyway.

24 hours is (very) up; with five votes against to one in favor, and with one abstaining, this amendment has failed.

[DanielX]

For the record, i vote nay.

[jokerman]

Don't we have room for a couple more bills?

[MasterJedi]

Don't we have room for a couple more bills?

2 or 3 if I believe!

[12th Doctor]

It appears the Republican government has failed.  I appologize for introducing this bill and making it so apparent.

[Colin]

It appears the Republican government has failed.  I appologize for introducing this bill and making it so apparent.

What do you mean by Republican?

[King]

You are looking at this all wrong Soulty: the Republican government didn't fail, the Libertarian government succeeded.

Populists
Supersoulty
PBrunsel
MasterJedi
Cosmo Kramer

Libertarians
ColinW
King
Daniel X
Gabu
MAS117

Unknown
Sam Spade (Political compass and actions differ)

[Colin]

You are looking at this all wrong Soulty: the Republican government didn't fail, the Libertarian government succeeded.

Populists
Supersoulty
PBrunsel
MasterJedi
Cosmo Kramer

Libertarians
ColinW
King
Daniel X
Gabu
MAS117

Unknown
Sam Spade (Political compass and actions differ)

Sam Spade has often said that the political compass doesn't work with him and that he would describe himself and his positions as moderately libertarian.

[12th Doctor]

"Republican" means "of or pertaining to a Republic".  I assumed that that very simple meaning would have no trouble communicating itself, since Atlasia is not not a two party system and we are a Republic.

[Sam Spade]

You are looking at this all wrong Soulty: the Republican government didn't fail, the Libertarian government succeeded.

Populists
Supersoulty
PBrunsel
MasterJedi
Cosmo Kramer

Libertarians
ColinW
King
Daniel X
Gabu
MAS117

Unknown
Sam Spade (Political compass and actions differ)

Sam Spade has often said that the political compass doesn't work with him and that he would describe himself and his positions as moderately libertarian.

I agree.  My results show me typically to be dead center, but in truth I'm probably 2-4 points more socially liberal than economically liberal (or vice vers)

[Sam Spade]

Shouldn't we start on another piece of legislation to replace this one?