Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Marokai Blue

[Marokai Backbeat]

Alright, this deserves explaining:

Say the Northeast and the Midwest want to enter into a Senate Partnership. Both regions hold a referendum seeing if the people want to enter into the partnership, and if both agree, then they enter the partnership together.

In the regional Senate elections, their positions are then combined. The people of the Midwest and Northeast now elect a combined number of 2 Senators, and the voters of the Northeast and Midwest vote together, like an at-large election.

The same sort of proposal could be made between, say, the Southeast and the Mideast, the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific, or any number of combinations, and the process works the same.

The language of this bill sucks. Someone might want to change it to this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd also suggest amending number three to require the PR-STV system used in at-large elections.

Yes it was very hastily written, I was given the idea earlier in the day, but I found it fascinating and simply had to get it on the floor as soon as I could. Consider it amended by my hand unless someone objects.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course, some work will also have to be written on if a region wants to dissolve/leave the partnership, but I think this is a fantastic idea.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course, some work will also have to be written on if a region wants to dissolve/leave the partnership, but I think this is a fantastic idea.

     I think if a region were to leave the partnership, that might undermine your goal in proposing this.

What so they should enter the partnership and be trapped in there for all eternity?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course, some work will also have to be written on if a region wants to dissolve/leave the partnership, but I think this is a fantastic idea.

     I think if a region were to leave the partnership, that might undermine your goal in proposing this.

Regions have a right to merge elections. Don't let the federal government dictate how a region can elect its own representative, PiT.

Yes it's a very pro-regional rights proposal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A Senate "Partnership"? While I'm interested in the idea, this proposal seems like a more moderate proposal in the discussions of abolishing Regional Senate Seats.

It allows regions to make the decision to join their elections or not. There is no abolishing of any seats or attempt by the federal government to make them at-large.

This proposal follows a key regionalist line: It lets the regions decide.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A Senate "Partnership"? While I'm interested in the idea, this proposal seems like a more moderate proposal in the discussions of abolishing Regional Senate Seats.

It's voluntary.

I read. It just seems like that is a possibility if that is passed.

That just sounds conspiratorial to me. That has nothing to do with this proposal.

Let's just stick to this topic this time.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A Senate "Partnership"? While I'm interested in the idea, this proposal seems like a more moderate proposal in the discussions of abolishing Regional Senate Seats.

It's voluntary.

I read. It just seems like that is a possibility if that is passed.

That just sounds conspiratorial to me. That has nothing to do with this proposal.

Let's just stick to this topic this time.

A possible prognosis isn't relevant to the proposal? It was merely a question. I'm not saying that is your aim, I'm just analyzing a possible result.

     Pointing out the possible results of passing this amendment makes you a conspiracy theorist, apparently.

That isn't a possible result.

     Because there is a section that specifically forbids all five regions from entering into a single partnership?

That's rather unlikely, though, and even if through some miracle it happened, it would be the choice of every single regional government. I would be hesitant to allow my region to enter into any partnership, I'm sure others have similar reservations, but still support the idea.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Opposition to this from the regionalists would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's the ultimate regional rights reform proposal, it leaves everything to the regions to decide. Opposition to such an idea doesn't show support for regional rights, it supports tyranny.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This Amendment doesn't really do anything, however, PiT. Everything, literally everything, is left to the regions, right down to the voting system they want. This Amendment simply allows regions to decide if they want to form Senate Partnerships or not, anyone can deny a partnership with any other regions if they want, but it lets the regions decide.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This change is to add a clause allowing regions to withdraw from the partnerships:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marokai, this sounds like exactly the kind of "change for the sake of change" that you always, always oppose.  I'm a little surprised to see you putting it forward.

I oppose this for the simple reason that I don't see it enhancing the game in any meaningful way.  The nameless "amendment" that is currently failing had more to offer than this, IMO.

If this does pass, I won't really care...I don't think any regions will actually do this.

It's not change for changes sake, as it aims itself at a problem: regional seats as they stand, and allows regions to move on their own to increase competition and interest in the respective regions. It barely changes anything for the most part, which is one element of "change for changes sake" I've always opposed. Further, this, unlike other proposals, doesn't include needless new positions or complicated new sections of government.

It's a great idea that I've actually sort of fallen in love with. It's a fantastic idea that is simple, doesn't change very much, doesn't add anything complicated, and allows regions to move to fix a problem if they so desire to.

I beg you to consider this, Fritz.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't think there's any proof either way that people will enact a partnership, PiT, so it's kind of a stupid point to bring up.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Once again PiT proves he doesn't understand anything. What, precisely, does this get rid of as you seem to be implying? Every analogy you come up with involved some sort of implication that we would be abolishing something?

Regions wouldn't be abolishing anything at all, they would simply combine their voters and their Senate seat with another region, creating two positions and doubling their voting bloc. You seem to act like this would suddenly abolish a regional Senate seat somewhere and shackle voters. It does no such thing.

The key to the opposition here is, PiT is coming up with tricky and unusual reasons to oppose it so the clear hypocrisy of regionalists not wanting to allow regions more control in their own system of representation isn't shown. Any regional rights supporter would be in favor of allowing this, and yet the same crowd is shaping up with predictable opposition on reasons that make little sense.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Another thing PiT doesn't seem to be understanding is that, believe it or not, members of a party aren't just in one region! A partnership between the Mideast and the Southeast would make sense for many in both regions, because it would unify certain voters. Similarly, the Pacific and the Northeast share many JCP members, and the Mideast and the Northeast share DA members and other misc. people.

The ability to unify parties, and also increase competition, may actually trump holding your own little stronghold for some people, you know.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Listen, Marokai, those are all good points, but could you make them without attacking PiT?

You're asking me to make points without attacking someone? Me?

It just feels like PiT is trying to find a way around the hypocrisy of a regionalist opposing a regional rights centered proposal. Even if he doesn't oppose it, I figure others will follow his lead.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not sure what to make of this bill. It's 'out there'; the idea of 'twinning' Senate seats in this fashion is, as far as I know unique to the western world. It doesn't appear to be have been raised publically and there have been no calls for a system like this to be implimented.

What we would essentially have as a bloc, a constituency, a grouping whatever you want to name it of regions who decided to 'share' Senators. Two regions could elect say 2 Senators (probably under STV) However this is done in an arbitary fashion by agreement between regions. It dilutes the power of each individual region (by agreement) and would do nothing to address the disproportionality when it comes to representation based on population in regional seats.

Hopefully Senators will recall that I proposed a system where each region elected a number of Senators in proportion to their population. There was concern that elected a small number of Senators (2 or 3) at the one time under STV was not viable. Personally I would contend that it is viable (given its application to Scottish local elections with success) and I am interested to see that it's being floated here.

So I take it electing small numbers of Senators using STV is fine If so then part of the opposition to my plan based on that contention has dissapated and I am free to introduce it before the current Senate It is a system which is fair to the principles of representation based on regions, based on population and based on proportionality.

The point of this proposal was to join regions, if they desired, into larger voting blocs which could act as a sort of "midway" between one region electing a Senator and making all Senate seats at-large. It had nothing to do with how we were fine with electing smaller numbers of Senators via STV or to do with population numbers, it simply aimed to lessen, since we can't eliminate, the distorting effect of regional elections (which, by the way, your proposal wouldn't do a damn thing about) and increase competition and interest where possible that exists in the at-large elections, on a purely regional organizing level.

With all due respect, Afleitch, I don't think this is some platform for you to start advertising your completely different ideas with little imput on the current issue before your eyes. I won't get into debating your proposal because when it comes to this thread and this idea, it's neither here nor there.

I don't really get what your complaints are here though. It wasn't discussed before, even though it concerns an issue we've had countless proposals and outright battles over, and no one does this in the real world, even though that is wholly irrelevent? It doesn't dilute the power of any region because it's solely based on Senate elections, unless you're referring to the idea that it might break up party strongholds, which I don't know why you would complain about. So what's your deal here?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Maybe, if it had something in that that limits the number of regions entering a partnership, them more people might support it. Maybe limiting the number to three or even two. Also something that said a region can only be in one partnership at a time. Also, maybe having the partnership limited to 6 month and at the end of that 6 months it goes vote again to see if the partnership stand or fails.

I don't see any point in doing that. I can agree to a limit on how often a partnership can be proposed with another region, but I see no point arbitrarily limiting the amount of partnerships that can be held or subjecting it to routine re-voting.

After reading this thread, and posts like this, I've become convinced that regional rights isn't about regional rights at all. The pro-regional rights crowd, as MaxQue said earlier, is "pro status quo" above all else. This proposal doesn't force anyone to do anything. Regions have complete and total control of everything involved in this system.

To DWTL: "Fluke" elections? That's a silly thing to complain about, there's not a damn thing we can do about that and if you lose an election, you lose an election. Do you have any idea the amount of "flukes" that would be required to reach your nightmare scenario, for heaven's sake? There would have to be a "fluke" in two regions, or three, or the entire flipping country.

This is not a secret plot to abolish regional Senate seats. This is a plan to give regions control over how they elect their representative. You have no argument against it other than that you just don't want it that way, which is starkly anti-region.

To Tmthforu94: It would take widespread opinion and a huge chain of events that never broke to get a situation where all five regions join in a partnership. It's a situation so unlikely that it's stupid to complain about it, and yet again, such a situation would depend on the vote of every single region so how can you POSSIBLY complain?

None of you want to give more power to the regions, you just want to regions to stay how you want them to, and disguise that sentiment as their "protection."

No, I won't accept any limitations on how many regions can enter partnerships with each other. The whole purpose of this is to give regions as much power as possible to elect their senators.

No, the purpose is a few people trying to basically create 10 at-large seats, hoping that all the regions band together to elect 5 "regional" Senators.

Then your ideas have become no less authoritarian than those who want all seats elected at-large. You want something your way, regional rights be damned.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Supporters: This is a great plan that allows regions to have control over how they elect their representative with the great potential to increase competition and exciting and in these partnerships it allows...

Opposition: IT'S A CONSPIRACEEEEEEE!!!!111

[Marokai Backbeat]

Marokai, I don't want the status quo at all. I believe we need change, but good change. You guys say this will make the regions stronger, but it will not. If we don't limit the number of regions that can enter a partnership then it will make the regions weaker. You can try to hide behind the reform mask on this, but we can see what you are really trying to do. Make all senate seats At-large without getting rid of regions.

Everything in this Amendment is totally under regional control.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If some senators were elected without any competition and 100% of the votes, well, this proposal may have a sense... But, today, that's not the case, thanks Dave.

The Pacific senator is correcting you by saying you than he was elected with 100% of votes without any competition. Well, I had a opponent, but he failed to came voting.

Yeah, perhaps BBF might like to do his research before speaking.

Since no other Senator has done so, I present Xahar's amendment as an amendment.

Can someone explain to me what it does and why it's been introduced? It seems purposely vague.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Alright, I gave this some thought and consulted others and.. I accept Xahar/Fritz's amendment as friendly. 24 hours to object.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Alright, I gave this some thought and consulted others and.. I accept Xahar/Fritz's amendment as friendly. 24 hours to object.

Time to change the thread title.

Yes indeed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Perhaps legislation could be introduced in the Southeast requiring a two-thirds majority for any change.

Yes, it's important for us all to remember that the regions would set all the standards, literally everything, involved in their elections.

A final vote will be opened soon.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye