Opinion on Efficient referenda amendment

[Morning in Atlas]

I agree with the conservative wing of the Northeast here. "Immediately" poses a rather large problem here, plus I'm not entirely keen on regions voting indefinitely at-will to ratify an amendment.

It was already the case before.

I know. My point still stands.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't understand the arguments here. Are people voting against this alteration of the amendment because of the wording of the original amendment from years ago that wasn't the focus of the changes?

Just because you don't like a long-existing part of the amendment doesn't mean you vote against what is being changed that is wholly separate.

Also, it's stupid to force an amendment to continue to pass through the Senate over and over again just because of the current and transient population of a couple of regions.

[cinyc]

I don't understand the arguments here. Are people voting against this alteration of the amendment because of the wording of the original amendment from years ago that wasn't the focus of the changes?

Just because you don't like a long-existing part of the amendment doesn't mean you vote against what is being changed that is wholly separate.

Also, it's stupid to force an amendment to continue to pass through the Senate over and over again just because of the current and transient population of a couple of regions.

I voted against this because it is yet another attempt at game "reform" that its proponents never bother to explain why it is necessary and it unjustly usurps on regional rights by moving something that traditionally has been in control of the regions to the federal government.

I also strenuously object to allowing regions to revote on Constitutional Amendments until they pass. That needs to be changed.  Nobody should be able to move regions and vote twice for the same amendment.   That doesn't make sense, and could lead to tyranny by the majority party, as its members move to take over regions to pass their anti-region game "reform" agenda.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't understand the arguments here. Are people voting against this alteration of the amendment because of the wording of the original amendment from years ago that wasn't the focus of the changes?

Just because you don't like a long-existing part of the amendment doesn't mean you vote against what is being changed that is wholly separate.

Also, it's stupid to force an amendment to continue to pass through the Senate over and over again just because of the current and transient population of a couple of regions.

I voted against this because it is yet another attempt at game "reform" that its proponents never bother to explain why it is necessary and it unjustly usurps on regional rights by moving something that traditionally has been in control of the regions to the federal government.

I also strenuously object to allowing regions to revote on Constitutional Amendments until they pass. That needs to be changed.  Nobody should be able to move regions and vote twice for the same amendment.   That doesn't make sense, and could lead to tyranny by the majority party, as its members move to take over regions to pass their anti-region game "reform" agenda.

     I think it is important to mention that regions don't ever really attempt to re-pass amendments. Allowing them to do so has proven to be a highly pointless "reform" considering that nobody ever does it. The abusability factor only makes things worse. If it actually were ever used, another amendment to get rid of it would come down the pipeline very quickly and justifiably so.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't understand the arguments here. Are people voting against this alteration of the amendment because of the wording of the original amendment from years ago that wasn't the focus of the changes?

Just because you don't like a long-existing part of the amendment doesn't mean you vote against what is being changed that is wholly separate.

Also, it's stupid to force an amendment to continue to pass through the Senate over and over again just because of the current and transient population of a couple of regions.

I voted against this because it is yet another attempt at game "reform" that its proponents never bother to explain why it is necessary and it unjustly usurps on regional rights by moving something that traditionally has been in control of the regions to the federal government.

I also strenuously object to allowing regions to revote on Constitutional Amendments until they pass. That needs to be changed.  Nobody should be able to move regions and vote twice for the same amendment.   That doesn't make sense, and could lead to tyranny by the majority party, as its members move to take over regions to pass their anti-region game "reform" agenda.

     I think it is important to mention that regions don't ever really attempt to re-pass amendments. Allowing them to do so has proven to be a highly pointless "reform" considering that nobody ever does it. The abusability factor only makes things worse. If it actually were ever used, another amendment to get rid of it would come down the pipeline very quickly and justifiably so.

It actually has been used before, and without the repercussions of which you speak. At one point, two regions (possibly a third, but I need to do my homework before I say which) also took advantage of the regional legislative process of adopting federal amendments.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't understand the arguments here. Are people voting against this alteration of the amendment because of the wording of the original amendment from years ago that wasn't the focus of the changes?

Just because you don't like a long-existing part of the amendment doesn't mean you vote against what is being changed that is wholly separate.

Also, it's stupid to force an amendment to continue to pass through the Senate over and over again just because of the current and transient population of a couple of regions.

I voted against this because it is yet another attempt at game "reform" that its proponents never bother to explain why it is necessary and it unjustly usurps on regional rights by moving something that traditionally has been in control of the regions to the federal government.

I also strenuously object to allowing regions to revote on Constitutional Amendments until they pass. That needs to be changed.  Nobody should be able to move regions and vote twice for the same amendment.   That doesn't make sense, and could lead to tyranny by the majority party, as its members move to take over regions to pass their anti-region game "reform" agenda.

     I think it is important to mention that regions don't ever really attempt to re-pass amendments. Allowing them to do so has proven to be a highly pointless "reform" considering that nobody ever does it. The abusability factor only makes things worse. If it actually were ever used, another amendment to get rid of it would come down the pipeline very quickly and justifiably so.

It actually has been used before, and without the repercussions of which you speak. At one point, two regions (possibly a third, but I need to do my homework before I say which) also took advantage of the regional legislative process of adopting federal amendments.

     Well I wasn't talking about the regional legislative process. My region uses it currently, so it would be pretty bad of me to not know that as I'm running for a seat in our legislature.

[Lincoln Republican]

I am opposed to this amendment, for reasons already spelled out so well in entries in this discussion.

[windjammer]

I find it hilarious to see that the right seems to be much more opposed to a minor change (because seriously this wasn't a big deal or a big move or whateer) than a bill basically raising the minimum wage to $14/hour or a bill basically nationalizing the energy industry. Just one word: HAHAHAHA.

I didn't even bother PMing people this time, because this isn't a big deal for me and that Poirot has raised some good concerns that could improve this version.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find it hilarious to see that the right seems to be much more opposed to a minor change (because seriously this wasn't a big deal or a big move or whateer) than a bill basically raising the minimum wage to $14/hour or a bill basically nationalizing the energy industry. Just one word: HAHAHAHA.

I didn't even bother PMing people this time, because this isn't a big deal for me and that Poirot has raised some good concerns that could improve this version.

It redefines the nature of the beast and endorses the concept in name if not in action of a national referendum. That is not minor Windjammer.

And yes, Regions have been the call to arms for the right since the formation of the RPP back in August of 2008. There was no "right" between 2007 and 2008. Half of the block were libertarians and there was nothing to unify them with conservatives on, until the Trondheim amendment tried to replace Regional Senate seats with an all At-Large Senate. That spurred the Southern Secessionist Party's creation by DWTL, SPC, Duke and PiT, and that later became the Regional Protection Party. The right, the conservative machine you toppled in the Mideast, were all products of the RPP's recruitment and organizational capacity. Even the Populares was formed out discontented RPPers largely, egged on by Hamilton. 

That said there was outrage at the nationalization bill in August. Fear of electricity nationalization, helped motivate the impressive turnout and unity behind Lumine against Adam Griffin months prior and also with Spiral the first week in August. Federalist GOTV heavily emphasized the push by TNF to nationalize everything he could get his hands on from February 2014 onward and I out to know, because I kind of wrote the damn things.

As for the $14 minimum wage, the inflation adjustments have in my estimate brought us at or near to that level because the statute was $12.50 indexed to inflation and set way back in early 2013.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I find it hilarious to see that the right seems to be much more opposed to a minor change (because seriously this wasn't a big deal or a big move or whateer) than a bill basically raising the minimum wage to $14/hour or a bill basically nationalizing the energy industry. Just one word: HAHAHAHA.

I didn't even bother PMing people this time, because this isn't a big deal for me and that Poirot has raised some good concerns that could improve this version.

     Amendments in general and amendments that affect regions are specially important to me, because of the extreme and effectively irreparable damage that can be done through the amendment process. If y'all want an amendment to nationalize energy, I'll gladly go to the barricades to put it down.