FYI to what President Griffin said above, for anyone who wants to know what actually happened/was said during the ConCon regarding TM "threatening" the ConCon over Kansas being in the South. Griffin seems to keep painting a much worse picture of TM than what is historically accurate. Read through that thread - it's a fun read on an exciting time in Atlasian history!
NayVoting Aye because I don't want to be an obstructionist, but I have reservations that are listed below...
Considering the entire premise of this amendment is determining where the regions are going and what they will be named, it doesn't make sense to be adopting this if you just plan on making amendments down the road.
For me, having Kansas in the Pacific is a bit of a non-starter in terms of the map (though it won't affect my final vote on the constitution). While I understand the argument geographically, when you consider that over 80% of the population is on the east and south side of the state, it would be absolutely terrible for the state if it were put in a separate region from Oklahoma and Kansas. I understand it may be small to some, but as the only person in here that is actually from the state, I know that if this were adopted in reality, well, it wouldn't be adopted in reality, because people would point out what a terrible decision it would be. I understand that some don't think it is a big issue, but for practically reasons, it would undoubtedly hurt the citizens in the state that I come from.
Additionally, as I said before, states shouldn't be named after historical figures - think how confusing it will be to new members when we say "you're in the Fremont region" - especially those who aren't from America! Keep it simple - North, Southeast (IDS), and West.
