Nay to Article 2 of the 4th Constitution

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I must say this very carefully. I support much of the constitution being voted upon my fellow Atlasians. However I can not in good conscience lend my vote in support of one of its articles. Article 2. It calls for the splitting apart of the Mideast region where the Southern and Northeast add to their blocs of influence. My region shouldn't be the one subject to destruction while two other regions simply merge. A strong Mideast benefits Atlasia while not having a Mideast makes us weaker. States like Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are as culturally diverse from the South as from the Northeast. While the Eastern states of the region got the better end of the deal we given a raw deal. We don't benefit from the new arrangement.

So vote No on Article 2 while supporting the rest of the proposed constitution.

[cinyc]

So vote No on Article 2 while supporting the rest of the proposed constitution.

How is that even possible?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

>Sigh<

1) You can't vote down Article II while ratifying the rest of the Constitution. That's not how the referendum works. You can either vote Aye and allow Atlasia to regroup and continue onward towards a new day, or you can vote Nay and consign the game to a lingering death.

2) I'm sorry, but this argument is really selfish. Do you not remember how close Atlasia came to collapsing back in July? In times such as these, everyone has to make sacrifices for the good of the country. Partitioning the Mideast is a small price to pay for a stronger, more active game. Had the Mideast remained whole, the Northern Region would have been far too large in terms of population and geography, resulting in a top-heavy map that would eventually drag down all three Regions.

3) Actually, Indiana and the rest of the Old Northwest do benefit from this change, because a more active game is good for everybody. Even die-hard regionalists like PiT and Yankee recognize that consolidation is a necessary step towards revitalizing the game. The map produced by the ConCon was the best possible map when it comes to building a stronger, more sustainable game, and that has to be our first priority.

4) As I and others have said repeatedly since before the ConCon even existed, compromise is inevitable. Everyone has had to accept a defeat or make peace with a decision they believe is ill-advised and wrong at least once in this process. For me, it was the right to secession; for you, it was the Regional map. Why should you be the only one to hold out and demand restitution? That doesn't seem like good sportsmanship or putting one's country first to me.

I'm as proud of being a Hoosier as you are, JCL, but I just don't understand why you continue to make this argument. It was one thing to argue against consolidation at the ConCon; now, the time has come to join hands in support of an imperfect document that is infinitely preferable to the status quo. You're either a reformer or an obstructionist; you can't have it both ways.

[Poirot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The map was produced before the ConCon. Debate on it was not really allowed, just a switch in 1 or 2 states. The map should have been debated at the ConCon, that was the appropriate forum and not take the map produced by the group that pushed for 3 regions years before just because that group voted on a map.

I understand if some people in the Mideast are not happy about what happens to their region.   

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Truman, I have wanted reform since the day I joined this game. Partitioning our region wasn't the right way to go. Like I have stated in totally in line with all the articles of the Constitution. Just not Article 2. I've had to settle for less on other points as well. 9 members in the new National Assembly as opposed to 11. The map wasn't produced by us in the ConCon. It was what the CARCA group produced. Nearly every map partitioned the Mideast. You were part of the CARCA map process while I was an ardent critic.

Poirot, the map wasn't debated on during convention. It was one of the CARCA maps. That mapping convention had a diehard agenda to partition the Mideast from the get go. They wouldn't even consider amendment processes within the constitution to possibly allow for reforms in the map. I tried to get a framework put in place but the ConCon Speaker at that point wouldn't allow it.

[tmthforu94]

JCL, amendments were made to the map. I offered one that was approved. I agree that there was a strong desire to adopt the CARCA map because that is where consensus was, but people weren't completely unwilling to changing the map.

[Adam Griffin]

For the record, there were two CARCAS: one in 2013 and one in 2015, with significant differences in who participated in each. Both CARCAs had many different maps submitted and put up for a vote, and both groups - again, consisting largely of different people - selected the same map.

Aggregate support in situations like this matters. The fact that the aggregate opinion of dozens of different people settled on that map - not once, but twice - speaks volumes for its superiority over other renditions. More people weighed in on that map than participated in the ConCon, just for comparison.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Truman, I have wanted reform since the day I joined this game. Partitioning our region wasn't the right way to go.

Okay... but the ConCon is over now. I'm not sure what you're proposing here: rejecting the Constitution because you don't like one Article out of ten? an Article-by-Article referendum? repealing consolidation after the Constitution is ratified?

[Adam Griffin]

I wouldn't bother going round and round with JCL: he has a long history of proposing actions and votes in this game that cannot be taken given...you know...the actual reality of the situation.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Truman, I have wanted reform since the day I joined this game. Partitioning our region wasn't the right way to go.

Okay... but the ConCon is over now. I'm not sure what you're proposing here: rejecting the Constitution because you don't like one Article out of ten? an Article-by-Article referendum? repealing consolidation after the Constitution is ratified?

I'm not proposing rejection of the constitution over one article. In the Mideastern gubernatorial debate thread I will be posting a clear answer to your question.

[Leinad]

To address the slightly off-topic subplot of this thread: CARCA was unofficial and therefore completely non-binding, while the ConCon was an entity approved by the people that explicitly was to decide the new Constitution. That is the difference, and why I objected to the dogmatic attachment some people had to the CARCA map. I basically agree with what Poirot said.

With that said, I support the final map, which is basically the CARCA map with two changes on three states by me and Tmth. I think CARCA made the process easier overall, although it was always non-binding, so it would've been faster had people not objected to common-sense changes to it, and simply treated it as a starting point. (Something I was very clear about at the time, I think. I mean, it's a 30-page thread, so I don't feel like digging through it, but I'm pretty sure I said something like that. )

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Back in 2013, when Fix the Regions was being debated. Going in, the biggest concern was the process would fall apart over how to divide what regions. There is no perfect answer that will satisfy everyone, still preserve some sense of numerical equality between the regions and go for a three region map.

That was the motivation behind CARCA. Last time, CARCA's map was another nail in the coffin because it eliminated one of only two regions the right could rely on. This time, with Labor controlling the region, the balance is largely preserved politically. So at the very least, that negative aspect no longer applied.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the Mideast is being divided up. I wish there was someway to please everyone, but as I see it, the map we have is basically the least bad option.


Also, Truman, I am not a diehard regionalist. I am a small f federalist, which made me a regionalist by default since the extremism was almost always on the side of centralists who often dominated most reform discussions. Therefore it isn't noticed as much. As an example, I have long opposed an all regional Senate in the absence of a House to represent the people. I also opposed secession everytime it has come up.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Back in 2013, when Fix the Regions was being debated. Going in, the biggest concern was the process would fall apart over how to divide what regions. There is no perfect answer that will satisfy everyone, still preserve some sense of numerical equality between the regions and go for a three region map.

That was the motivation behind CARCA. Last time, CARCA's map was another nail in the coffin because it eliminated one of only two regions the right could rely on. This time, with Labor controlling the region, the balance is largely preserved politically. So at the very least, that negative aspect no longer applied.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the Mideast is being divided up. I wish there was someway to please everyone, but as I see it, the map we have is basically the least bad option.


Also, Truman, I am not a diehard regionalist. I am a small f federalist, which made me a regionalist by default since the extremism was almost always on the side of centralists who often dominated most reform discussions. Therefore it isn't noticed as much. As an example, I have long opposed an all regional Senate in the absence of a House to represent the people. I also opposed secession everytime it has come up.

It wasn't the least bad option, with all due respect Senator Yankee. A Pacific/Midwest merger with some tweaks and a four region set up could have worked. The reason I didn't advocate it as a compromise was I still believe that five regions can thrive. I even tried to propose framework into the new constitution to go to a four region or even restore the current five region map should our activity levels go back up. Speaker Truman wouldn't allow me to propose such.

[tmthforu94]

JCL, I like you personally, but no one gives a .

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

You can't just vote down one article. It amazes me that some people are still clinging to this idea that 5 regions is workable given the state of the game over the last year or two.

It's time for a new era.

[This account no longer in use.]

Exactly. There's simply too much of a high turnover to have five regions. The entire Northeast Assembly has been completely replaced multiple times in my time in the game.

[Poirot]

There has been a reduction of two regions but at the same time a creation of 5 more federal legislative offices in Nyman. So it's like transfering a region to Nyman.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Back in 2013, when Fix the Regions was being debated. Going in, the biggest concern was the process would fall apart over how to divide what regions. There is no perfect answer that will satisfy everyone, still preserve some sense of numerical equality between the regions and go for a three region map.

That was the motivation behind CARCA. Last time, CARCA's map was another nail in the coffin because it eliminated one of only two regions the right could rely on. This time, with Labor controlling the region, the balance is largely preserved politically. So at the very least, that negative aspect no longer applied.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the Mideast is being divided up. I wish there was someway to please everyone, but as I see it, the map we have is basically the least bad option.


Also, Truman, I am not a diehard regionalist. I am a small f federalist, which made me a regionalist by default since the extremism was almost always on the side of centralists who often dominated most reform discussions. Therefore it isn't noticed as much. As an example, I have long opposed an all regional Senate in the absence of a House to represent the people. I also opposed secession everytime it has come up.

It wasn't the least bad option, with all due respect Senator Yankee. A Pacific/Midwest merger with some tweaks and a four region set up could have worked. The reason I didn't advocate it as a compromise was I still believe that five regions can thrive. I even tried to propose framework into the new constitution to go to a four region or even restore the current five region map should our activity levels go back up. Speaker Truman wouldn't allow me to propose such.

I meant least bad option for a three region setup.

A four region map doesn't cut enough offices and makes bicameralism unworkable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Exactly. There's simply too much of a high turnover to have five regions. The entire Northeast Assembly has been completely replaced multiple times in my time in the game.

In 2009-2010, the Mideast Assembly had high turnover because it was considered a stepping stone to At-Large Senate, Regional Senate and several members went on to become President.

That said has been accelerated in the NE, but a good bit of that has been elections to high office and appointments.

It actually makes your point, because when that happens the lower populations make finding replacements difficult. Clark was suppose to be a leader in the legislature for a while, but an opportunity came along in December and he grabbed it with both hands and wound up as Senator. JoMCar did the same thing last August.

[Blair]

Exactly. There's simply too much of a high turnover to have five regions. The entire Northeast Assembly has been completely replaced multiple times in my time in the game.

In 2009-2010, the Mideast Assembly had high turnover because it was considered a stepping stone to At-Large Senate, Regional Senate and several members went on to become President.

That said has been accelerated in the NE, but a good bit of that has been elections to high office and appointments.

It actually makes your point, because when that happens the lower populations make finding replacements difficult. Clark was suppose to be a leader in the legislature for a while, but an opportunity came along in December and he grabbed it with both hands and wound up as Senator. JoMCar did the same thing last August.

I did as Assembly Speaker, Dkrol run for President, Clyde became RG, Pikachu the regional Senate.

[Classic Conservative]

JCL, I consider you a close friend my brother, but you are dead wrong on this one.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

JCL, I consider you a close friend my brother, but you are dead wrong on this one.

I wouldn't bother going round and round with JCL: he has a long history of proposing actions and votes in this game that cannot be taken given...you know...the actual reality of the situation.

Proposed votes and actions which were not even given a up or down vote.