SENATE BILL: Fair Amending Procedure Amendment (Passed-Not Finalized)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'd be open to this if the threshold was higher, something like 3/4 or so, not 60%. I still would like to see all these amendments that fail though, as I've only witnessed two or three while being here and I'm far more washed up than you.

Keep in mind that these are supposed to be difficult to pass, not easy. There's a reason we have the current system in place. Also, Atlasia is not a democracy, so throw that argument out.

It also depends on how much ropE I'm willing to give. If this is a build up to a bill abolishing regions, I'll die on this senate floor before I allow that to happen. I'll take you at your word.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

As a member of the Regional Protection Party, I tend to support this.

It's no great secret that I don't see much point in the regional structures as far as elections are concerned.....and especially for ratification of amendments.

At least regional Senate seats serve a purpose....a direct connection between a group of voters and an elected representative. But requiring majorities in a certain number of regions doesn't seem logical to me, rather I see it more as a pointless way of distorting the will of the people.

If it were up to me, a national popular vote would be the only relevant key to ratification (with perhaps a 60% minimum or so for successful ratification).

Regional protection to me is more about actual politics, allowing regions to make their own laws on a majority of issues.....allowing regions to experiment with their own systems, allowing regions to compete with each other for business, etc. In other words, things I think lead to better policies over time.

Making ratification of amendments more democratic, though.....doesn't actually weaken regions. I urge my party to look at the bigger picture here.

Oh, I'm looking at the big picture. I'd argue this may hurt the legitimacy of the amendment process more than regions rights. As long as regions are left alone in terms of their local governments, I'm fine and happy, but I don't think we should make passing amendments that much easier. That's why if the threshold was set at 75% or so, I'd likely get behind this. Even setting it at 60% still may let one ideology or another push through a dangerous amendment. If im making any sense....

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

There are certainly other reasons why those aforementioned amendments failed. Anyway, how about we compromise and say 2/3 of the population or something must ratify for it to pass? I'm still not that comfortable with 60%, but I'm willing to work with y'all.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'll propose an amendment. Just gimme a sec guys and gals. Writing one on an iPad will be tough and my laptopvis in for repairs.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

There seems to be a confusion between legislation and constitutional amendments. These amendments have a much longer and permanent impact than does legislation, and this fact cannot be taken lightly. Usually, good amendments pass and poor ones fail not because of the tyranny of the majority/minority, but because they are good/bad amendments. Legislation to promote equality and the like has passed easily by this country, and generally we are all reasonable, able bodied people. I have reservations about trying to make the ratification of amendments more like passing legislation than an amendment. It's also much easier to repeal a bad law than it is to repeal a bad constitutional amendment. They are supposed to come along once in a while, not every few weeks.

That said, if we are dead set on voting on this, I will offer an amendment to set at threshold if you all can wait a day for my laptop to come out of the shop. This iPad can only do so much in terms of formatting and such.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Ok, so listen up guys. I actually read this legislation and I'm a little confused with the wording, so I just struck both parts of it and added my own. IMO, the main goal behind this is to make voting at-large a way to pass an amendment along with the current system, correct? If so, I don't understand why we don't just keep the current law in place and amend this to add the second part. In its current form, the bill keeps the old law, adds the at-large provision and also tries to add a 3/5 provision. I'm all confused. If we are dead set on voting on this, I'd like to offer this amendment to the floor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Otherwise, I'm for tabling this bad boy.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

^^ That's racist.

And thanks Lief, I didn't read over it carefully enough. I think I took that word out by mistake.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I cannot support 3/5ths. That's far too low. 2/3 is the lowest I'm willing to negotiate. This is an amendment people, not a law.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

2/3rds would make this Amendment totally void. What do other Senators think ?

Why? I'm simply adding that provision onto the current law so if 2/3 of the Atlasian population supports something, regardless of whether all the regions do, it will pass. I simply do not believe an amendment should pass that easily, and a 60% threshold is way too easy to meet. I'm not at all for devaluing the constitution to where we can amend it willy nilly like that.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

2/3rds would make this Amendment totally void. What do other Senators think ?

Why? I'm simply adding that provision onto the current law so if 2/3 of the Atlasian population supports something, regardless of whether all the regions do, it will pass. I simply do not believe an amendment should pass that easily, and a 60% threshold is way too easy to meet. I'm not at all for devaluing the constitution to where we can amend it willy nilly like that.

I understand your point, but I have to disagree. I think 60% is a protection hard enough agains frivolous/partisan Amendments. We shouldn't let a minority prevent any change that would disadvantage it.

Or the tyranny of the majority. I think a 2/3 supermajority will suffice in passing an amendment, but one side or another would not have that hard of a time reaching 60% of the vote. Again, this is an amendment. This bill would make it harder to defeat good amendments with strategic registration. I'm not trying to so much make it easier to pass amendments. We'll have to agree to disagree on the 2/3 threshold, I supposes.

But hey, are we going to vote on either one of our proposals for a threshold? We have to have some kind of one. The current form of the bill is very vague.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I can almost guarantee a 60% threshold will not pass 4/5 regions. 2/3 will have a hard time as well, but I'm trying to compromise here guys...

All or nothing will certainly not accomplish much of anything.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

alright...how about 62%?

Why are you trying to complicate things? First you wanted to make it 3/5th to honor the 3/5ths compromise, and now 62%? Just accept my amendment and move on. Big Brother Duke knows what's best.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Thank you Antonio! I urge the PPT to call this to a vote!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

That's fine. Let's get this thing passed. We have too many concurrent bills as it is.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What was I voting on? Does anyone know? I support my 2/3 amendment but obviously oppose the bill in its original form. If someone can clarify this for me, I'll send them a box of chocolates.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Ditto with this one. I'm tired of the debate. We need to vote on both the amendment and the final bill. This thing is starting to get stale.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

aye

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Someone should make an ATTENTION GOVERNORS - but I don't think that's my job. I'll do it if need be.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes. My amendment passed with the 2/3s claus.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Jeez. I had no idea we never voted on this!