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

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fellow Senators,

The issue that will be debated here is a very old one. In fact, this is not the first time when we attempt to modify the amending procedure of our constitution. Why ? Because, in its current form, our amending procedure is particularly unfair. Since I joined Atlasia, I have seen tons of constitutional Amendments failing despite the fact a strong majority of Atlasians had supported them. Under the current system, an Amendment needs the backing of four of the five Atlasian regions. No matter how strongly the Atlasian people supports it, two regions are sufficient to block any attempt of reform. If I well remember, I have seen a couple of time Amendments receiving the support of 60% of the citizens and still being rejected.

The Amendment I propose is aimed to make the process slightly fairer. Under my proposal, an Amendment which receives a significant share of the At-large Atlasian vote won't need the support of four regions to be ratified. If more than one third of all the Atlasian citizens, representing an absolute majority of votes cast (which means abstain votes are counted as nay), support the Amendment, the support of three regions will be sufficient to ensure its ratification. Is this system excessive ? I don't think so. Those requirements are met, it would ensure that :
- A significant share of Atlasians have supported it (no incentives due to low turnout)
- An uncontestable majority of the voters have expressed their support
- A majority of regions also supported it
Those requirements are strong enough to ensure that Amendments don't pass too easily. At the same time, they ensure that the Atlasian people isn't denied the right to decide. Because this is the main issue, fellow Senators : should the Amending power be given to the people ? It is my conviction, as a (small d) democrat, that the answer is yes. If we establish strong guarantees (and my proposal does), it is fair to let the people decide at last. That how things usually work in a democracy.

Of course, there are many possible objections to this proposal. Some will claim that Atlasia is a federation, and thus that regions should have their say in the Amending procedure. My answer is simple : regions will have their say under my proposal. No Amendment will ever be adopted if it is not supported by a majority of regions. Of course, this majority is lowered from 80% to 60%, but it remains a strong guarantee for regional rights. Fellow Senators, all our political system is based on a balance between the power of the people and the power of the regions. The way we elect our Senators is the perfect example of this balance. Why in the world should the Amending procedure be an exception to this rule ? My proposal simply aims to establish a more balanced system, where both the regions and the people have their say.

Finally, some could say that my proposal is, in fact, motivated by partisan considerations. That my true goal is just to advantage the reformist left against the conservative right. That I want this Amendment to be adopted because this will make easier to pass other, "left-wing" Amendments. To those people, I would like to remind you an amendment against which I strongly campaigned : the Ludlow Amendment. The Ludlow Amendment, introduced by a controversial Senator for mostly ideological purposes, has garnered much support among Atlasian citizens. Despite receiving a strong popular support, the Ludlow Amendment failed because two regions refused to ratify it. Under my proposal, it would have been ratified. I hope this is enough to convince you that partisan considerations have nothing to do with that. I am glad the Ludlow Amendment has failed, but I think that, in a fair system, it should have been ratified.

I hope this is enough to convince you, fellow Senators, of the legitimacy of my proposal. This is not a partisan, ideological or personal issue : it's mostly a common sense issue. And when it comes to common sense, it is our duty to show we are able to gather beyond partisan considerations. We have an occasion to improve our constitution : let's do it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Senator NC Yankee,

I admit I'm a bit disappointed by your argument. Are you implying that my aim by proposing this Amendment is actually to facilitate a further Amendment regarding regional Senate seats ? And thus that it is for partisan reasons ?

I thought I had already made clear that this was not my goal. But probably I wasn't enough clear, so let's put it in another way. I will not introduce any Amendment abolishing regional Senate seats. I still strongly oppose them, but the people have spoken on this issue several times and my priority is to focus on new ideas. Let me tell it once again, I have no intention to abolish regional Senate seats. If someone else does, I might support his proposal, but nobody seems to be interested to that so far. I will probably introduce other institutional reforms dealing with the legislative power, but nothing that would threaten regional Senate seats. Was I clear enough ?

What can I add now ? Once again, the Ludlow Amendment. I opposed it and would oppose it again if it were reintroduced, but the people have spoken and we ought to respect their will. Because this is the main point, fellow colleague : the people. It's not about what I or you think about regional Senate seats or another random issue, it's about repsecting the voice of the people. You claim that the "four regions rule" doesn't prevent an Amendment which garners strong popular support to pass. Theoretically speaking, you are wrong : it is possible for an Amendment to get over 70% of the vote and still fail. Maybe unlikely, but possible. On a more likely situation, we could see the high 50s-low 60s for a failed Amendment. It has happened in the past. It can happen again.

There is something I really don't get in your logic. You say that "A high threshold is present to prevent such a thin majority (60% is not that large) from fundamentally changing the system to further empower that 60% at the expense of the rest, which is what abolishing the Regional seats was meant to do". What does it mean : that a minority of 40% of Atlasians should be able to dictate their will to the other 60% for the simple reason that the status quo advantages them ? How in the world is it fair ? You seem to think that the status quo is inherently superior to the point that if 40% of the people supports it it's enough for it to prevail. What makes the status quo so good in your opinion ?

My proposal is a perfect balance between regional rights and democracy. Instead, you seem to think that regional rights and the status quo are more important than giving the people the right to choose. I find this opinion hardly acceptable. Maybe I misunderstood your purpose, and I would be glad to hear your answer. But I really wonder how you can honestly think the current situation is fair. How you can complain about "60% of the voters imposing their will to the other 40%" and accept that 40% impose their will to the other 60%. In every political system, people impose their will to other people. In a democracy, the majority imposes (to some extent) its will to the minority. If we allow the contrary to happen, there is something wrong in our democracy.

I have the feeling that you are the one who is pursuing partisan purposes, Yankee. I have the sad feeling that you support status quo simply because you like it and because you know a majority of Atlasians don't. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a little wordy, but I might support something like an amendment passing if passes in 4/5 regions or it gets 60% of the total popular vote---whichever comes first. Amendments are supposed to be more difficult to pass than normal legislation, but perhaps we could find a more reasonable middle ground.

60% seems a bit high a threshold to me. Can we agree with a 55% threshold, while maintaining the other requirements ? (the 35% requirement will de facto raise the threshold to around 60% anyways, because turnout for Amendments is usually pretty low) Would you support the bill in this case ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, long posts seem to be pretty useless, so I'll try responding point by point.

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.

I can remember at least four :
- The Amendment that would have made the procedure fairer
- The Amendment for "regional partnerships" (aka Evil Anti-Region Power Grabbing Amendment according to my dear North Carolinians)
- An Amendment regarding capital punishment
- The Ludlow Amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is still difficult to pass under my system. My proposal makes it slightly easier and a lot fairer (in the sense that the people has the right to decide).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends how you define democracy, I guess. I don't really want to enter in such an off-topic discussion, but we have to agree that it is mostly a democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Abolishing regions ? LOL, this would never pass. Even abolishing regional Senate seats would be impossible under my system. You have nothing to fear in this regard.

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.

See what I already said. It's not like my system would make it easy to pass.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You aren't. If more than 60% of the people of Atlasia share an ideology, why should they be denied the right to amend the Constitution according to their ideology ? It's not like our current system is ideologically neutral. No Constitution in the world is ideologically neutral. The only thing is that with this system, the partisans of status quo are unfairly advantaged. Once again, the point is not whether changing the constitution would advantage an ideology : it's whether status quo advantages an ideology. Because it's the partisans of status quo who are advantaged.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

What about 40% of all Atlasian citizens ? Turnout is always around 50-60% so it would be a strong clause.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yakee, I honestly don't understand if you are being naive or again just defending your own interests. Nobody in Atlasia is willing to deprive anyone from their rights. And even if someone were, he could never garner a majority, let alone a supermajority.

And yet, you keep arguing about the superiority of status quo over reform. This hardly makes sense. What if it is our current constitution which deprived people from their rights, and an Amendment would restore justice ? You say there is a threat that a majority could potentially harm the minority through an Amendment. But what if the majority harms the minority through the constitution, and an Amendment is proposed to prevent them from doing ? In 1860, more than 40% of Americans supported slavery. An Amendment abolishing slavery would never have passed if it weren't for the Civil War. So, thanks God there was the Constitution to prevent people from oppressing other people...

Yankee, the truth is that you oppose this because you are unfairly favored by status quo. Your comments prove it :

1. An attempt to game the system was rejected thanks to the preexisting rules
2. Another attempt to game the system was rejected thanks to the pre-existing rules
3. Which was an attempt to target a single region who still had it and ended up abolishing it on its one. Once again the system did its job and prevented the majority from ganging up on the minority. You may have an opinion on the death penalty but that doesn't give you the right to impose it on others who disagree. And as it turns out, unless my memory is failing the IDS abolished it anyway.

What you call "attempts to game the system" are simply reform proposals you disagree with. If the constitution allowed regional partnerships and that someoned proposed an amendment to abolish them, would you call it an "attempt to game the system" ?
You wouldn't, because it would serve your interests/ideology. The current amending procedure is simply a way to prevent a strong majority of Atlasian citizens from changing the status quo. And the reason why you like it is that you are happy with the status quo. If the status quo were different, your views would be different too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As a side note, I'd like to see Amendments being proposed and maybe put on vote. Nobody said the current draft was perfect and couldn't be modified to account for constructive critics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry, I still don't understand. You spend a lot of time criticizing my implying that you defend your own interests (which I can understand, it was aimed to be polemical), but I still don't see a clear answer to my point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How in the world did that Amendment favor strategic registration ? To the contrary it would have helped making it more pointless if several regions held their Senate elections together. You can say you disagree with the Amendment and its purpose, but why in the world it would be an attempt to rig the system ? You're right, maybe its application would favor certain parties at the expense of other parties. So ? It also mean the constitution advantages other parties at the expense of the first. Why do you see "power grabs" only in changes and never in the status quo ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Come on, Atlasia is not the 1920s Germany. You can use this example as much as you want, but you see inexistent threats. As far as I know, nobody has ever introduced an Amendment aimed to grab power, and if someone ever did, it would fail epically whatever system is used. You can argue as you want that we need a strong guarantee against power grabbing, there is no sign of such threat. Except if you call "power grab" anything you don't like.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To the contrary. The reason why I got you wrong a couple of time is because your rationale is bizarre and woolly. If you said things more clearly, I wouldn't need to guess what you mean. So, please, tell me your "real reason".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you are the one who got me wrong. I never said the abolition of slavery would have passed if the Amendment system had been easier.

My main point is that, sometimes Constitution=oppression and abuse of power and Amendment=fairer system. And thus, if you set too hard rules for Amendments to pass, it leads to advantaging a minority against the majority, and prevent people from putting an end to power grab. In one word, by wanting to protect us against power grabbing Amendments, you may help protecting a power grabbing Constitution. That's why it's not enough to say "we need to protect us against power grabs". We must ensure a fair balance between the protection of the constitution and the ability to change what does not work in our constitution. Got it ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you said yourself, regions can be "colonized" with or without regional partnerships. Would regional partenrships encourage such practices ? Not really. What could happen is that people register in regions in order to take over their government, try getting the most regional Senate seats, and maybe reinforce their ability to pass Amendments. Regional partnerships wouldn't be that incentive.


I'll give up on the "Hitler scenario" because of course the "you never know" argument is unbeatable. Of course it would be nice to bring some realism in the discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok. But isn't it possible to disagree on what should be the relation between the Federal gov and the Regions ? You think the arrangement between them as established by the constitution is the right one, and thus that modifying it would be a power grab. But some people can consider that the current arrangement is unfair, and that modifying it would be a step forward a best arrangement. So, once again, power grab is a change you disagree with.


I understand better what you mean, and I agree, as you say, that "the burden should be placed on the one seeking amendment". The only thing we disagree about is the extent of this burden. I think that, in order to avoid partisan/frivolous Amendments, a threshold should be set. But I also think that we must make sure that the people still has its say on the constitution, and that a minority couldn't constantly block any attempt to change the system. You care about protecting the constitution against the "tyranny of the majority", but you don't see that we also have to protect the right for the people to fix what doesn't work even if it doesn't please a large part of the electorate. The reason why I use (and will keep using) the word "fair" is simply because the issue is about bringing some balance between these two necessities. And the reason why your position is unfair is because you only see the first and neglect the second.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All this is nice, but please answer to my main point.

I understand better what you mean, and I agree, as you say, that "the burden should be placed on the one seeking amendment". The only thing we disagree about is the extent of this burden. I think that, in order to avoid partisan/frivolous Amendments, a threshold should be set. But I also think that we must make sure that the people still has its say on the constitution, and that a minority couldn't constantly block any attempt to change the system. You care about protecting the constitution against the "tyranny of the majority", but you don't see that we also have to protect the right for the people to fix what doesn't work even if it doesn't please a large part of the electorate. The reason why I use (and will keep using) the word "fair" is simply because the issue is about bringing some balance between these two necessities. And the reason why your position is unfair is because you only see the first and neglect the second.

And still, nobody oughts to agree with you about what is or isn't a power grab.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, the main problem is that sometimes it's the majority that wants to improve the system and a strong minority that opposes the improvement for partisan reasons. You seem to think that, each time an Amendments divides people on partisan lines, it's because the majority is trying to impose a partisan-motivated "power grabbing" Amendment. Sometimes, it can be the contrary : the minority opposes the Amendment for partisan reasons, and due to this system, a good common sense measure fails because it goes against the will of a clan. Don't we need some guarantee against that ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Yank, you're already fed up of our little argument ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

3/5ths is fine with me. I think most of us will agree that it is a majority strong enough to prevent a "dictatorship of the majority".


I hereby amend the bill to read :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The second modification is meant to prevent from interpretations considering a "majority of aye" as applying to every citizen, comprised non-voters.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

I've amended my amendment bill to make it simpler. Of course, we can still put your two thirds proposal on vote. I will support the Amendment whatever the requirement is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, since 3 Senators have already made clear that they wouldn't support the Amendment in its current form :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hereby accept Senator Duke's Amendment as friendly.

I hope now all Senators can agree with this compromise and send this to the regions for ratification.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just one thing. Can we put it than way ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The current bill could be misinterpreted as meaning a majority of ayes among all citizens.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Aye

Wait, has the amendment been dealt with properly?

Well, Duke said he accepted it, and since I am the sponsor of the bill I can amend it as I want, right ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, I guess the the period is over now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

PPT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Antonio the Sixth]

PPT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Aye

[Antonio the Sixth]

I gues this has passed now. Time to submit it to the regions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh damn it.

I had supposed that, since 3 regions had already opened the voting booth, there was some reason behind that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

LOL Bacon King LOL