Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 the goal I think you have in mind in proposing this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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?

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

     I was trying to point out that it could be co-opted by anti-regionalists. Then there's taking into account Senator Fritz's observation that probably no regions will want to enact partnerships (perhaps unless guided to do so for the purpose of abolishing regional Senate seats).

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

     I was trying to point out that it could be co-opted by anti-regionalists. Then there's taking into account Senator Fritz's observation that probably no regions will want to enact partnerships (perhaps unless guided to do so for the purpose of abolishing regional Senate seats).

Regional Senate seats are not in danger... It couldn't pass the Senate. The "amendment amendment" that would have made ratification easier failed in three key regions. Are you dense enough to think I would endanger regional seats without being provoked?

     Last time I checked, all five regions forming a partnership together would effectively do the same without a Senate vote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

     I was trying to point out that it could be co-opted by anti-regionalists. Then there's taking into account Senator Fritz's observation that probably no regions will want to enact partnerships (perhaps unless guided to do so for the purpose of abolishing regional Senate seats).

Regional Senate seats are not in danger... It couldn't pass the Senate. The "amendment amendment" that would have made ratification easier failed in three key regions. Are you dense enough to think I would endanger regional seats without being provoked?

     Last time I checked, all five regions forming a partnership together would effectively do the same without a Senate vote.

Yes, but I have a difficulty imagining a region who voted against the abolition of regional Senate seats voting for a partnership including the five regions. What is the problem with people in regions deciding?

     The thing is that in that case it would just be like an outright amendment to abolish them only without the Senate involved. The odd thing about this amendment is that it gives regions a power that they don't really have an impetus to use. It would be like empowering the federal government by passing an amendment allowing the Senate to vote its powers away to another federal branch or the regions whenever it wished to.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

     I was trying to point out that it could be co-opted by anti-regionalists. Then there's taking into account Senator Fritz's observation that probably no regions will want to enact partnerships (perhaps unless guided to do so for the purpose of abolishing regional Senate seats).

Regional Senate seats are not in danger... It couldn't pass the Senate. The "amendment amendment" that would have made ratification easier failed in three key regions. Are you dense enough to think I would endanger regional seats without being provoked?

     Last time I checked, all five regions forming a partnership together would effectively do the same without a Senate vote.

Under my suggestion, that would require over 60% of voters in each region to approve that. And technically, they would still be regional Senate seats. The regions simply choose a different way of electing their own representation. What is so hard to understand about that? And you know what? If 60% of people in every region want something, it's hard to make a case against it.

     They would effectively be at-large, since they'd be elected in basically the same way as the Class B seats. Also, if public opinion is that strongly in favor of making the switch across the board, passing an amendment through the Senate should be possible without much trouble.

[Associate Justice PiT]

PiT hasn't explicitly come out in opposition to this, so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

     On some level, I don't really care if it passes. I came to this topic to point out the possibility of eliminating regional Senate seats with it. I then got sucked into an argument when I was attacked.

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.

     Generally speaking, I consider having a fairly spread out party a good thing, such that unifying the party would offer no great advantage. Of course, this introduces partisan wrangling to the system, which is probably not the worst thing that could happen. Hell, just go to party list & be done with it. I think everyone would be happier that way than in this slow lurch towards parliamentarianism.

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 partnership?

Why should there be?

You fascists would love to prevent the regions from choosing their own method of representation, wouldn't you?

There's nothing wrong with allowing, say, the Pacific and Midwest to merge Senate elections so that the few conservatives in the Pacific might get to have a voice in determining representation.

     So you admit that it is possible, even if, as Senator Marokai Blue says, it is unlikely.

It's voluntary and temporary. What is the big deal?

     It strikes me as the perfect vehicle for people who want to abolish the regional Senate seats. I think that should be pointed out; doesn't mean it has to be "OMG THEYRE ATTAKING TEH REGIONS". On a minor note, I don't see where temporary comes in, except for the fact that regions can withdraw from partnerships.

re-read your own post, then.

     I suspected that Senator Marokai was one of the folks who wanted to use this to abolish regional Senate seats. Obviously I think that if a region enters into a partnership it should also be able to withdraw. That much is basic.

So, giving the control of regional elections to regions is an anti-regions proposal?

It is making no sense, honestly!

     I was trying to point out that it could be co-opted by anti-regionalists. Then there's taking into account Senator Fritz's observation that probably no regions will want to enact partnerships (perhaps unless guided to do so for the purpose of abolishing regional Senate seats).

Regional Senate seats are not in danger... It couldn't pass the Senate. The "amendment amendment" that would have made ratification easier failed in three key regions. Are you dense enough to think I would endanger regional seats without being provoked?

     Last time I checked, all five regions forming a partnership together would effectively do the same without a Senate vote.

Under my suggestion, that would require over 60% of voters in each region to approve that. And technically, they would still be regional Senate seats. The regions simply choose a different way of electing their own representation. What is so hard to understand about that? And you know what? If 60% of people in every region want something, it's hard to make a case against it.

     They would effectively be at-large, since they'd be elected in basically the same way as the Class B seats. Also, if public opinion is that strongly in favor of making the switch across the board, passing an amendment through the Senate should be possible without much trouble.

You are only focusing on one part of the bill. This bill is giving the control of regional Senate seats elections to regions. Regions are gaining a power, yet, you are opposing it.

You must make a choice here. Either you support regions and support this, either you are against regions and oppose this. I think than you are not pro-region, you are pro status quo.

     That quote had little to do with this bill. Of course there is the issue that the Southeast will likely never enter into any partnership, so you could also observe that this amendment doesn't affect me.

     There's no reason for me to oppose this bill if the observation that abolishing regional Senate seats is possible is a null factor, which it most definitely is if 60% is required to approve any partnership as Hamilton suggested.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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

As you may recall, the Pacific and Midwest have had a certain animosity historically. The JCP does not control the Midwest, and even if it did, what would be the difference between two JCP seats and a JCP double-seater constituency? Also, couldn't the Southeast combine with the Mideast to keep the RPP in power?

But, anyway:

Regional Self-Determination Amendment

The qualifications and means of election for Class A seats in the Senate may be changed by the Regions to whom they belong.

     Combining the Mideast & Southeast would make it hard for the RPP to hold both seats, & would be a violently anti-DA move at that.

     I do like your proposed amendment a lot, though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I strongly support this amendment. I suppose I should introduce legislation in my region soon stating that we will not give up our exclusive right to representation by our Senator unless 70%+ vote in the affirmative, so as to nullify the threat of eliminating Regional Senate seats.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Regions should be able to unilaterally change the requirements for their own vote if they so wish.