A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE

[Purple State]

Does the Lief/MaxQue crowd have any thoughts regarding my compromise proposal?

Personally, I don't like imposing on regions the way to choose their representative.

I tried not to, hence the clause about regions choosing which officials to send based on their own laws. They could simply choose by popular vote among the officials, by gubernatorial appointment, by set positions. It actually allows for quite a bit of variety is my hopes. And elected officials would be people chosen by the citizens already.

[Vepres]

Does the Lief/MaxQue crowd have any thoughts regarding my compromise proposal?

Personally, I don't like imposing on regions the way to choose their representative.

I tried not to, hence the clause about regions choosing which officials to send based on their own laws. They could simply choose by popular vote among the officials, by gubernatorial appointment, by set positions. It actually allows for quite a bit of variety is my hopes. And elected officials would be people chosen by the citizens already.

I like the original text concerning the representatives best. Does anybody have any objections to that piece of the draft?

[Χahar]

For me, a CoG and an at-large 10 seats Senate is an good compromise.

^^^^

It may not cut Regional power, but it does cut regional influence, especially if the CoG can only vote and not propose legislation.

OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!

If you have regional influence, I want special influence for right-handed people.

How many babies have you eaten today, Xahar? What happened to your Revolution, you didn't give me a chance to fire my wiff of grapeshot. .

I'm getting bored of it.

But no, seriously.

What do regions have intrinsically that entitle them to special influence? I've been asking this for well over a year now.

But I was having fun. .

Then recruit people to my side.

But first, answer my question.

The honest answer to your question is that regions have special influence because: a) they must confirm anything we pass and b) they have a hell of a constituency. No amendment removing regions, even were it to pass the Convention or Senate, would make it through the regional votes. On the other hand, nothing considerably weakening the national government would pass either. That is why we need to compromise in such ways.

Would it be nicer and more efficient if we could pass the best possible reform? Of course! Unfortunately, entrenched interests rule in this game and so that is what we must work with.

Please stop with your obsession with compromise, please.

But I'm not asking why they do, but why should they?

[Purple State]

There is no compelling reason to provide reverence to the regions, except that we no longer have the power to stop it. I also think the regions provide enough benefit to the game to warrant maintaining them and, yes, empowering them.

As to why I always find compromises, it is party for reasons of practicality, but also because compromise more than often results in a better outcome.

Unless there be additional comments or substantive debate, I will be bringing to the floor a proposal for fourty-eight hours of debate, followed by a vote.

[Vepres]

The regions are important if only because both Canada and the US, the two countries where most of Atlasians are really from, are federalist. Thus, they like to see federalism in the game. Besides, it adds and extra dimension to the game.

But I agree with the PO, even if you wanted to remove regions, public opinion is largely against you.

[Purple State]

The following proposal is brought forth for a period of no less than forty-eight hours of debate. Amendments offered or sponsored by delegates shall be brought to a vote of the Convention unless they be accepted as friendly, at the discretion of the Presiding Officer.


The following shall be included in Article I as Section 2: The House, with subsequent sections renumbered accordingly:

1. The House shall be composed of a maximum of nine Representatives, each with a term of one month, distributed proportionally among the regions to the nearest whole number. The representatives shall be elected from among the members of the regional elected officials according to the laws of each region.
2. No Person shall be a Representative who has not attained one hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter and elected legislator in the Region that they represent.
3. The House shall choose their other officers, and also a Speaker of the House, who shall be responsible for chairing debate that occurs within the House, managing every day business and who shall not have a vote lest the chamber be equally divided.

Article I, Section 5 shall hereby be renumbered Section 4 and read as follows:

Section 3: Congressional Rules and Legislation
1. The separate chambers of Congress may establish their own rules of procedure, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of its number, respectively, may expel a member of the same chamber.
2. Each chamber shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office. A quorum in each chamber shall have voted on any Resolution, Bill, Impeachment or Constitutional Amendment for it to be considered valid.
3. For any Bill or Resolution to pass the Senate, it shall have gained a majority in a valid vote. Before the Bill or Resolution becomes Law, it shall be presented to the House and President of the Republic of Atlasia separately, unless it be concerning the rules for the proceedings of the Senate. If the House and President do not approve, the former by a majority in a valid vote, it shall not become Law. If the President approves and the House disapproves, they shall return the Bill with their objections to the Senate, and it shall not become Law. Upon reconsidering the Bill, if the Senate shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number, it shall become Law. If the President does not approve and the House approves, it shall become Law. If a Bill is not returned to the Senate by the President within seven days after it shall have been presented to him, it shall become Law regardless. The House shall have seven days to act on a Bill, after which time they shall be considered as an abstention. In such a case, if the President approves the Bill shall become law, if he does not approve he shall return the Bill with his objections to the Senate for reconsideration as directed per the above procedure.

Article I, Section 8 is hereby removed.

Article IV shall hereby read as follows:

Section 1: Regional Government
1. The Regions may elect a Governor as chief executive officer, and may establish other executive posts as they wish, however no executive member may be elected for a term of more than six months.
2. A Region may establish a legislature for itself to make proper laws and electoral procedures.
3. A Region may establish a judiciary for itself; However, if they choose not to, the federal Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all election disputes, but only insofar as Regional Law may provide.
4. Regions are autonomous of the federal government and may govern themselves and their elections as they wish, except where otherwise provided for in this Constitution.
5. The Secretary of Forum Affairs shall determine and announce the number of representatives each region may elect to the House. Such determination shall be based on the proportion of the total population of Atlasia.

Section 2: Regional Boundaries
1. The existing Regions of Atlasia are adopted unaltered by this Constitution.
2. The consent of the House and Senate is required for any change in Region boundaries.
3. The consent of the Regions being changed is required.
4. A State by plebescite shall be able to veto its transfer from one Region to another.
5. In the event that a new State joins Atlasia, the Senate may apportion this State to a Region and a District via proper legislation, however, the State shall still be liable to all the provisions of this Section and Section 4 of this Article.
 
Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
This Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Atlasia which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every Region shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any Region to the contrary notwithstanding.
The powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions, are reserved to the Regions respectively, or to the people.

[/quote]

[Hashemite]

1. I'm not sure I like this Second Empire-like bicameral system, and I much prefer true bicameralism if we do establish bicameralism. However, I could live with this system even though I'm far from a fan. I do appreciate the little steps taken to accommodate parliamentarianists, even if there's a majority of "omg evil evil foreigners with parliaments!!!" people.
2. I want the House elected by STV or some form of PR. No districts or any of that crap.
3. I introduce the following amendment:
Strike Article IV, Section 1, Clause 3.

[Marokai]

I'm not voting for a bicameral legislature. Not unless it's Max/Lief's idea of 10 national senators and a five-seat CoG. Not now, not ever.

[ilikeverin]

While others do what I'm sure will be an adequate job of disagreeing with some of the main points of the article, I'll nitpick.

Maybe we could make it so judicial powers have to be devolved specifically to Regions by the national government?

[Purple State]

I will only be replying to posts that are actually substantive:

1. I'm not sure I like this Second Empire-like bicameral system, and I much prefer true bicameralism if we do establish bicameralism. However, I could live with this system even though I'm far from a fan. I do appreciate the little steps taken to accommodate parliamentarianists, even if there's a majority of "omg evil evil foreigners with parliaments!!!" people.
2. I want the House elected by STV or some form of PR. No districts or any of that crap.
3. I introduce the following amendment:
Strike Article IV, Section 1, Clause 3.

While others do what I'm sure will be an adequate job of disagreeing with some of the main points of the article, I'll nitpick.

Maybe we could make it so judicial powers have to be devolved specifically to Regions by the national government?

I think both of the judiciary ideas from you two are worth looking into, as the regional courts are hardly used. But I would like to hear if anyone has an objection to simply abolishing regional judiciaries or, as ilikeverin posed, require that certain laws devolve jurisdiction specifically to regional courts.

[Marokai]

Substantive? What more can be said about a proposal you've been trying to tinker with to get passed for weeks?

I'm not voting for this because it's unnecessary horseshit. That's why. We can't will regional activity and creating a bicameral legislature just for the sake of it is not helpful or at all needed. I've been almost completely ignoring this "discussion" because I think it's all complete garbage and looking for some way to push through change just for the sake or it, or to find some way to get Purple's previously-failed proposals tinkered with enough to get Ayes.

I think it's nice that you've taken up spurring regional activity as your little pet-cause, but it can't be done, it's all unsustainable and unnecessary. The Mideast Assembly started marvelously, and then crashed. Two seats went vacant, you have idiots or no-bodies working on irrelevent legislation, and it's generally just sort of a propped up cancer patient at the moment. The Pacific legislature includes votes from all Pacificans, and it's a corpse, and I don't see many people thrilled at the idea of a Northeast legislature even when given the opportunity. You keep pointing to regional legislatures or the Mideast Assembly in particular as great examples of regional excellence, and I don't see it.

Max/Lief's idea of 10 national Senate seats and the 5-seat Council of Governors as an Upper House is a perfectly reasonable idea that keeps within the current framework, spurs competition for Governor and Lt. Governor (which will now be much more important positions), and generally makes things a bit more exciting and competitive.

But despite what I just said, I don't think there's any way you can somehow stimulate more activity in any long-term way. Activity comes and goes, people come and go. At the end of the day we either abolish regions and go all out with the reform some people here have wanted since day one, or we stick with what we have and tinker a bit. Creating some retarded bastard child proposal like this is not going to do anything but change the system just for the hell of it.

I will never understand your obsession with complicating literally everything and trying to mold and twist every reasonable idea into something unrecognizable. I remember criticizing you for the same thing when we started this "game reform" crusade, and here we are, arguing over the same unnecessary BS as day one.

[Purple State]

Substantive? What more can be said about a proposal you've been trying to tinker with to get passed for weeks?

I'm not voting for this because it's unnecessary horseshit. That's why. We can't will regional activity and creating a bicameral legislature just for the sake of it is not helpful or at all needed. I've been almost completely ignoring this "discussion" because I think it's all complete garbage and looking for some way to push through change just for the sake or it, or to find some way to get Purple's previously-failed proposals tinkered with enough to get Ayes.

I think it's nice that you've taken up spurring regional activity as your little pet-cause, but it can't be done, it's all unsustainable and unnecessary. The Mideast Assembly started marvelously, and then crashed. Two seats went vacant, you have idiots or no-bodies working on irrelevent legislation, and it's generally just sort of a propped up cancer patient at the moment. The Pacific legislature includes votes from all Pacificans, and it's a corpse, and I don't see many people thrilled at the idea of a Northeast legislature even when given the opportunity. You keep pointing to regional legislatures or the Mideast Assembly in particular as great examples of regional excellence, and I don't see it.

Max/Lief's idea of 10 national Senate seats and the 5-seat Council of Governors as an Upper House is a perfectly reasonable idea that keeps within the current framework, spurs competition for Governor and Lt. Governor (which will now be much more important positions), and generally makes things a bit more exciting and competitive.

But despite what I just said, I don't think there's any way you can somehow stimulate more activity in any long-term way. Activity comes and goes, people come and go. At the end of the day we either abolish regions and go all out with the reform some people here have wanted since day one, or we stick with what we have and tinker a bit. Creating some retarded bastard child proposal like this is not going to do anything but change the system just for the hell of it.

I will never understand your obsession with complicating literally everything and trying to mold and twist every reasonable idea into something unrecognizable. I remember criticizing you for the same thing when we started this "game reform" crusade, and here we are, arguing over the same unnecessary BS as day one.

We aren't simply willing regional activity or reform. Just in order to set out how officials are elected to the House, regions will be forced to reform their Constitutions. And while they're at it...

While regional governments and assemblies may not be fountains of substantive or consequential legislation, they are meant to hold, your term, no-bodies in order to orient them to the game. When I joined the Mideast Assembly, I was a no body. Even if they don't do anything meaningful, members of these bodies learn from older members (Peter and Inks are fixtures of the Mideast and do an excellent job of orienting new members; Duke has stated his interest in serving on a Southeast legislature). It also allows them to learn the legislative "lingo" and parliamentary procedure.

While you are correct that a CoG would spur competition for the office of governors, this proposal would do the same for the offices in each region that are designated to represent the region in the House.

I don't see how any of this is too complicated. People here aren't a bunch of bumbling fools. If you outline what is necessary and if people spend time working their way up the levels of the game it becomes pretty easy to figure things out. This isn't overhauling anything. All it does is add a new dimension with the hopes of leading people to approach the game in a more excited way.

[Marokai]

While regional governments and assemblies may not be fountains of substantive or consequential legislation, they are meant to hold, your term, no-bodies in order to orient them to the game. When I joined the Mideast Assembly, I was a no body. Even if they don't do anything meaningful, members of these bodies learn from older members (Peter and Inks are fixtures of the Mideast and do an excellent job of orienting new members; Duke has stated his interest in serving on a Southeast legislature). It also allows them to learn the legislative "lingo" and parliamentary procedure.

I'm not arguing against regional legislatures, if people want to create them that's all well and good, my point is that they usually end up as just a collection of bench warmers hogging up offices. As you say, people aren't bumbling idiots, they can figure these things out by reading, or participating in legislatures of the Pacific's style.

While you are correct that a CoG would spur competition for the office of governors, this proposal would do the same for the offices in each region that are designated to represent the region in the House.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

[Purple State]

While you are correct that a CoG would spur competition for the office of governors, this proposal would do the same for the offices in each region that are designated to represent the region in the House.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

[Marokai]

While you are correct that a CoG would spur competition for the office of governors, this proposal would do the same for the offices in each region that are designated to represent the region in the House.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

So basically you just want your proposal passed instead? Also, as I said, I think forcing the regions to do anything is a bad idea and I'd rather abolish regional government entirely than start dictating how everything is going to be laid out.

[Purple State]

While you are correct that a CoG would spur competition for the office of governors, this proposal would do the same for the offices in each region that are designated to represent the region in the House.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

So basically you just want your proposal passed instead? Also, as I said, I think forcing the regions to do anything is a bad idea and I'd rather abolish regional government entirely than start dictating how everything is going to be laid out.

My proposal is the only one that took into account all of the vested interests, resolved underlying conflicts and produced a neutral proposal that could garner wide-spread support. It involves the same idea of a CoG with a twist.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I have no issue with axing regional judiciaries. It's not as if they really handle any business that could not be handled by the Supreme Court.

[Purple State]

In that case, Article IV, Section 1, Clause 3 is stricken with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly.

Other thoughts?

[Senator MaxQue]

While you are correct that a CoG would spur competition for the office of governors, this proposal would do the same for the offices in each region that are designated to represent the region in the House.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

Thanks Purple State, you just explained why I am against that proposal. That forces the region to reform. The Mideast tried to reform in a way. Now, you are pushing all the regions in the same way. Each region can have a different system.

And this will break the 50-50 equilibrum of the regions and the nation. This will go 75-25 for the regions.

[Purple State]

While you are correct that a CoG would spur competition for the office of governors, this proposal would do the same for the offices in each region that are designated to represent the region in the House.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

Thanks Purple State, you just explained why I am against that proposal. That forces the region to reform. The Mideast tried to reform in a way. Now, you are pushing all the regions in the same way. Each region can have a different system.

And this will break the 50-50 equilibrum of the regions and the nation. This will go 75-25 for the regions.

Regional reform doesn't imply identical reform Max. I want them all to reform, but I sincerely hope they do so with their own regional flavor. If you are against regional reform and oppose providing a venue for new members to be introduced to the game in a substantive way, that is your prerogative. But it is clear that when a region reforms and has a relatively active regional government, new members seem to join in larger numbers than those regions that sit idle and void of activity. It's about providing new members with something to do.

As to the equilibrium, perhaps we could strengthen the President to balance that. Any thoughts?

[Senator MaxQue]

I have two amendments.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 is replaced by ''The House shall be composed of a maximum of nine Representatives, each with a term of one month, distributed proportionally among the regions to the nearest whole number.''

Article 1, Section 4 shall read as follows:

   1. The Senate shall be divided into two classes: Class A and Class B, who shall be elected at-large.
   2. Elections for the seats in Class A shall be held in the months of February, June and October; Elections for the seats in Class B shall be held in the months of April, August and December.
   3. Regular elections to the Senate and Presidency shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on the second to last Thursday of the month in which they otherwise would have started and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning.
   4. If a vacancy shall occur in a Senate seat, then a special election shall be called to fill the remainder of the vacated term within one week of the vacancy occurring. Special elections to the Senate shall begin within ten days of the vacancy occurring and shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Thursday and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning. However, if a vacancy shall occur when there is a person due to assume that office within two weeks, then no special election shall be necessary.
   5. The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Senate elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Senate shall be by public post.
   6. Those elected in ordinary elections to the Senate shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election. Those elected in special elections to the Senate shall take office as soon as the result of their election has been formally declared.

[Purple State]

Before I bring both of those to a vote Max, I just want to make sure you understand why I have it that the House is chosen from among elected officials of the region. It is to add some competition for the regional seats, as well as some competition and novelty to the different regions in how they choose their national representatives.


I now bring each of Max's amendments (found in the above post) to individual votes. The voting shall last 24 hours. I will waive the quorum requirement as half the delegates don't bother to show up. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain for each individual amendment separately.

[Marokai]

I do not support a senseless House of Representatives in any shape or form. Nay on that one.

As for 10 national senators, that I do support. Aye.

[Hashemite]

I ask why my amendment, proposed first, is not up to a vote.

[Purple State]

I ask why my amendment, proposed first, is not up to a vote.

I accepted the removal of the judiciary amendment as friendly.