Western Regional Committee

[Mike Thick]

I would like to serve the committee as chair.

[Mike Thick]

So, first of all, we need to seat Senators. tmth pretty much summed up my thoughts in another thread:

I see two different routes we could take:
Route 1: Have separate special elections for the Class A and Class B Senate seats as soon as possible.
Route 2: Let this committee appoint the two senators.

There could also be a hybrid option, where we appoint the seat that is to be elected in June and hold a special election for the seat that is to be elected in August.

Those are what I see as the most plausible options - I'll leave it open for others to discuss before weighing in.

I personally think that the hybrid option is probably best -- having two simultaneous special elections is a tad confusing, but if we have one we can put the amendments on the ballot alongside the Senate seat. However, there are arguments to be made for any of those. What do you guys think?

[Mike Thick]

Okay, let me just make sure I'm fully understanding what you are saying. You are suggesting that one of the Senators should be appointed by this committee, while the other one is elected by the people alongside the amendment votes. Am I correct?

Yes. Specifically, the June seat would be appointed while the August seat would have a special election.

[Mike Thick]

I would propose we do it the other way, we hold an immediate election for the June seat and appoint someone to the August seat.

I don't think this is the way to go. The August Senator would go for quite a while without being approved by voters, while the June Senate seat would be voted on two times during that period.

[Mike Thick]

I would propose we do it the other way, we hold an immediate election for the June seat and appoint someone to the August seat.

I don't think this is the way to go. The August Senator would go for quite a while without being approved by voters, while the June Senate seat would be voted on two times during that period.

I am fine with the original suggestion, who were you proposing to appoint?

Edit I would ideally want someone that has either served in the Senate before or been a VP/President.

I suggest that we open it up to applicants, then hold a vote. Personally, I don't find experience to be too important, but that's something the Committee should decide by voting on the Senator.

Another subject we need to figure out -- rules of order. I'd like to get this done (both the Regional Constitution and the rules) as quickly as possible. Perhaps we could employ a version of the ConCon rules mentioned in Articles IV and V, with shorter voting periods to grease the wheels. Thoughts?

[Mike Thick]

I modified Truman's rules for the North slightly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see anything too glaringly wrong, but what do you guys think? Any stupid errors/changes you might make?

[Mike Thick]

I considered striking that as well, but since it would only require a majority vote of delegates to overturn I didn't bother . That's fine.

[Mike Thick]

If nobody objects to the amended rules within about an hour, I'll take them as accepted and move on to a resolution for Senate races.

[Mike Thick]

Which set of rules the original or amended version   

Amended.

If nobody objects to the amended rules within about an hour, I'll take them as accepted and move on to a resolution for Senate races.

[Mike Thick]

I have a proposal for Senate races, we hold elections for both of them this weekend. All Candidates are on the same ballot with  the top two finisher elected, the person finishing first is elected as a Class 1 senator, and the second place finisher is elected as a Class 2 Senator. After doing some thinking on this, I feel this is the most democratic solution. Instead of having an un-elected appointee serving in one of the most critical times for Atlasia. The people of the Western region can have their say right away.  I also don't see how holding two elections could be confusing, we hold lots of multi seat Senate elections all the time and don't have any confusion then.

Can you write this proposal into a formal "bill" so we can proceed to discuss this in line with the rules? Thanks.

[Mike Thick]

I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it makes sense to elect two Senators  (EDIT: to two separate seats) in one election. There are plenty of known quantities that the Committee could appoint to the Senate for the extremely brief period until they would face voters (if things are scheduled as specified, the Senator won't serve for more than a few weeks).

Committeemen have 24 hours to object.

[Mike Thick]

I object to the amendment of the amendment. If you think that Senators should face voters as soon as possible, then the appointed Senator should be the one that will have to be re-elected within a few weeks.

[Mike Thick]

I guess this means we have... a principle vote?

Committeemen, please indicate your preference within 24 hours.

Principle Vote on Election of Senators

[ ] Plan A: Hold a special election for the Class II seat, which is elected in February, June, and October, who will serve out the remainder of that term. Appoint a Senator to the Class I seat, which is elected in April, August, and December, who will serve out the remainder of that term.

[ ] Plan B: Hold a special election for the Class I seat, which is elected in April, August, and December, who will serve out the remainder of that term. Appoint a Senator to the Class II seat, which is elected in February, June, and October, who will serve out the remainder of that term.

[Mike Thick]

Principle Vote on Election of Senators

[ ] Plan A: Hold a special election for the Class II seat, which is elected in February, June, and October, who will serve out the remainder of that term. Appoint a Senator to the Class I seat, which is elected in April, August, and December, who will serve out the remainder of that term.

[X] Plan B: Hold a special election for the Class I seat, which is elected in April, August, and December, who will serve out the remainder of that term. Appoint a Senator to the Class II seat, which is elected in February, June, and October, who will serve out the remainder of that term.


I think that 1184AZ may be misunderstanding the system I am proposing. The June-elected Senator would be appointed and then have to be re-elected on the day of the June Presidential election, facing democracy within a week or two. The August-elected Senator would be elected in a special, and thereby facing voters immediately -- quite literally as fast as possible. Consequently, this is the most democratic option.

[Mike Thick]

I guess this means we have... a principle vote?

Committeemen, please indicate your preference within 24 hours.

Principle Vote on Election of Senators

[ ] Plan A: Hold a special election for the Class II seat, which is elected in February, June, and October, who will serve out the remainder of that term. Appoint a Senator to the Class I seat, which is elected in April, August, and December, who will serve out the remainder of that term.

[X ] Plan B: Hold a special election for the Class I seat, which is elected in April, August, and December, who will serve out the remainder of that term. Appoint a Senator to the Class II seat, which is elected in February, June, and October, who will serve out the remainder of that term.

I understand how the system will work now thanks Tim for explaining this more  clearly to me.

Tim Bessell sounds freaking awesome

[Mike Thick]

is all good

[Mike Thick]

Plan B has enough votes to pass. I guess you can change your votes, but, I mean, I don't know why you would do that

[Mike Thick]

I voted Plan B above

I know, but rpryor has not yet voted. Even then, we still have a while to change their votes if we want to for whatever reason.

[Mike Thick]

Plan B has passed.

[Mike Thick]

Time to start discussing the meat and potatoes here.

I recommend we adopt Truman's proposal to name the Region "Fremont." He's a decently non-controversial historical figure from the Region who most people can get behind. I also recommend that we adopt a pretty generic system of Government -- a Governor, with a unicameral Legislature elected at-large. Maybe we could have a Lieutenant Governor, if there were a way to actually get them to do things.

As for the size of the Legislature, I'd be in favor of a three-man legislature that goes up to five when there are six or more candidates. Maaaaaaaybe we have a trigger for seven, but that seems like it might be a stretch.

[Mike Thick]

Time to start discussing the meat and potatoes here.

I recommend we adopt Truman's proposal to name the Region "Fremont." He's a decently non-controversial historical figure from the Region who most people can get behind. I also recommend that we adopt a pretty generic system of Government -- a Governor, with a unicameral Legislature elected at-large. Maybe we could have a Lieutenant Governor, if there were a way to actually get them to do things.

As for the size of the Legislature, I'd be in favor of a three-man legislature that goes up to five when there are six or more candidates. Maaaaaaaybe we have a trigger for seven, but that seems like it might be a stretch.

I will support Teds proposal, until we see how much activity we have lets not have a
Lieutenant Governor unless we get them do another job besides their LG duties such as the  CJO duties.

Maybe we have them administer Regional elections, if that isn't covered by the Regional Justice. One idea I was playing with was having them take over Speaker's duties, but that seems a bit excessive.

However, I agree -- we either have them and have them do something, or don't have them at all.

[Mike Thick]

I think the three-man lej with the trigger works. I'd prefer not to have useless offices, and if we'd just have to make up things for the LG to do that might be something to amend into the Constitution later on if activity increases.

Another option for a name is "Oeste," Spanish for "West." Basically the same, just more exciting. Personally, I don't think the name is too important, but I'd prefer something with a bit more vim and verve to it than just "The West."

[Mike Thick]

I think the three-man lej with the trigger works. I'd prefer not to have useless offices, and if we'd just have to make up things for the LG to do that might be something to amend into the Constitution later on if activity increases.

Another option for a name is "Oeste," Spanish for "West." Basically the same, just more exciting. Personally, I don't think the name is too important, but I'd prefer something with a bit more vim and verve to it than just "The West."

As I said before if we can't find a role for LG then we should not have it. For the name how about Cascadia.

The problem with "Cascadia" is that only a tiny fraction of the Region is actually Cascadia.

I'm getting a sense that this is something we'll have to vote on

[Mike Thick]

Ted what is the status on the above election bill in this thread

Sorry, this got a bit lost in the noise. Plan B passed.

[Mike Thick]

I goofed up and switched the classes . One week to wreck the region -- a new record.

Fortunately, this is easily fixable. A moment.