Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm not reading all of this, but this is obviously an attempt to eliminate regional senate seats.  However, I do like the idea of regions choosing their voting method

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm not reading all of this, but this is obviously an attempt to eliminate regional senate seats.  However, I do like the idea of regions choosing their voting method

If two regions agree to merge for electoral purposes, combining their senators....how can a regional rights advocate like you be opposed to allowing them?

If that were what this bill would about that is one thing, but anyone cann this is an attempt to remove regional seats just as much as the bill to make amendments easier to pass was.  I'll admit the anti-regionalists are getting more clever, but we still won't fall for it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Don't you get it? You are opposing regional rights here. If the Mideast and Northeast both AGREE, who are you to prohibit that?

I give you guys props for trying to goat us into supporting this, but we see what it is.  Simply move a certain number of people into a region and then you can combine them.  Sure a region like the Dirty South may retain its independence, but other regions will lose their representation.  I am not willing to let that happen, every region deserves a seat.  That has been our first and foremost mission from the get-go and will continue to be

[DownWithTheLeft]

Regional rights are good as long as they are protecting the rights of the regions and not allowing people to use votes to remove those rights.  This is no different than holding an up/down vote on regional seats

[DownWithTheLeft]

No one should be deprived of their regional representation because a vote occured that says they no longer have it.  This is about standing up for every citizen and making sure there voice is heard.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No one should be deprived of their regional representation because a vote occured that says they no longer have it.  This is about standing up for every citizen and making sure there voice is heard.

And how exactly is their voice not heard if their respective region enters a partnership? It would only be enacted through majority votes in both regions.

Do you know how easy it is to get a vote in a low turnout off-key election like that?  Xahar's fluke win in the Dirty South being the perfect example. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

So you basically just acknowleged that with a simple vote you could eliminate regional senate seats, thank you for stating my reasons to be opposed to this

[DownWithTheLeft]

Can a region or can it not vote to remove its regional representation?  I again cite Xahar's election that flukes can happen in elections that do not reflect the view of the people

[DownWithTheLeft]

Can a region or can it not vote to remove its regional representation?  I again cite Xahar's election that flukes can happen in elections that do not reflect the view of the people

You clearly demonstrate that you couldn't give a s**t about regional rights.

I do care about regional rights, my senate record speaks for itself.  However, I do not want the possiblity of a fluke election destroying regional seats.  There should be 0 avenues to eliminate regional representation

[DownWithTheLeft]

I do care about regional rights, my senate record speaks for itself.  However, I do not want the possiblity of a fluke election destroying regional seats.  There should be 0 avenues to eliminate regional representation

Got it. Regions shouldn't be free to decide for themselves.

If you hold a vote enough times, eventually it will pass by a fluke. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

Alright for anyone who wasn't sold this bill has ulterior motives, Xahar and Hamilton had a hand in writing it

[DownWithTheLeft]

As usual Devilman makes no sense and is only hurting a real argument.

Looks, lets face it the first move will be the Pacific and Midwest combining so that the JCP can score an easy double victory.   Perhaps then a merger of the Northeast and Mideast to keep the RPP from winning the Mideast seat.  We see what the idea is here, to increase liberal power

[DownWithTheLeft]

I still urge all senators to vote against this bill unless something is clearly stated that each region must still retain one senator.  Under what Xahar has proposed, the regions may still combine

[DownWithTheLeft]

I still urge all senators to vote against this bill unless something is clearly stated that each region must still retain one senator.  Under what Xahar has proposed, the regions may still combine

Isn't that their right?

For reasons I have outlined no less than 10 times, no

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would think Hamilton is referring to the ratification process where the RPP universally opposes this amendment making it very unlikely to pass

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would think Hamilton is referring to the ratification process where the RPP universally opposes this amendment making it very unlikely to pass

Then your hypocrisy, your lies, can be exposed for all to see.

There is no hypocrisy no lies at all, the supporters of this bill have just put their fingers in their ears and refused to acknowledge what we say and instead just shout that we hate regions and think everything is a conspiracy.  There is no conspiracy, its pretty easy to see what this is aimed at doing

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm not sure where the current text of the bill is but could someone introduce the amendment requiring a 75% approval and 50% turnout based on the average of the last two reguarly scheduled elections

[DownWithTheLeft]

Thank you Mr. Senator, in that I ask a senator introduce this amendment

2. In order for any change to occur to method of selection, the vote must meet the following conditions:
A. 75% of voters must vote in the affirmative
B. 50% of the total number of voters in the region in the last two regularly scheduled elections decided in half must vote

[DownWithTheLeft]

75% is too high for me....I might be willing to agree to 60%.

66%/50% compromise would work for me.  This should be easy, I don't see why at least the constituional amendment standard should not be held.

I'm really confused about this amendment now with the senate having only 8 senators

[DownWithTheLeft]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

[DownWithTheLeft]

What constitutional standard? For passing constitutional amendments, you only need a majority (50%+1) of votes cast.

Sure you need 4 regions out of 5, but seeing as EVERY region that wants to enter a partnership would have to agree, my proposal would already more than satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Well to originally pass in the senate you need 2/3 vote, I don't see why that shouldn't apply here.  Unless you are looking to eliminate regional seats, which at this point should be admitted, the standard should be really high

The standards I am proposing are STRICTER than for constitutional amendments!

Only if you require 4/5ths of regions to approve the change

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yet it is only two regions.  The constitutional amendment process requires that a popular vote of senators be held that reaches 2/3 AND 4/5 of regions pass it.  Here you are only asking the voters of two regions to vote in a simple majority.  I may actually be willing to come down to the 60% number, but 50% of the average of the number of voters in the last two elections is a huge sticking point.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Why is it the Southeast's concern if the Midwest and Mideast want to arrange a partnership?

They're not being forced to do anything.

100% of those affected must approve, I think that's a pretty fair standard

Its not 100% of those affected.  The 50% is a stick point to me because I am worried about the possbility of a special election being called (as many regions can do) and then something like a 3-2 vote ending a regional senate seat.  Its 50% of the average number of voters in the last two elections.  If the turnout is more than 50% less than the last election, that means the will of the people is not sufficently heard.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Let regions decide. No need to pander to Fluffy.

I am one of the few in my party willing to even discuss amendments to this, if you can't win over me good luck winning over enough people to pass this in 4/5 regions.  The Dirty South is gone and the Mideast, Midwest, and Northeast are far from sure things

[DownWithTheLeft]

Well if the turnout requirement were the only way to pass this, then I wouldn't stand in its way, but I'd prefer to not restrict regional rights more than necessary.

We'll see what happens.

Would you mind introducing my proposal with the number changed from 75 to 60 as an amendment?