Regional Self-Determination Amendment [At Final Vote]

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

Regional Senate Partnership Amendment

1. Any region may enter into a Senate Partnership with any other region, or regions, following approval by all regions in question by popular referendum.

2. In these Senate Partnerships regions shall combine their regional Senate elections, electing a number of Senators equal to the amount of regions in the Senate Partnership simultaneously.

3. The voting system in the combined Senate elections must be agreed upon by all regions involved in the Senate Partnerships.


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

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

Then it will be the regions and the people that eliminate that representation, not the federal bullies.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

Not even the government. The bill requires popular referendum. That being said, we should probably find a way to ensure that the referendum obtains a supermajority of about 60%.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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?

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

You're talking about the RPP, Marokai... They love tyranny, populism, and fascism.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

Should we continue to entertain the senseless obstructionists?

[Alexander Hamilton]

I am currently neutral on this, but it is quite unfair to simply call "conspiracy" when someone makes a good point. The first thing I saw when reading through this and then seeing Hammy's PR-STV comment was, "This allows a majority of each region to get together and abolish regional Senate seats."

I would add a clause to allow regions to withdraw from this partnership.

We've already said that we need to find a way to allow withdrawal. I think I simple majority vote by popular referendum (called by the regional legislative body or Governor) should suffice.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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?

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Full support.

Opposition to this on regional rights grounds is hypocrisy.

The Ridiculous Prude Parody just likes to serve as an obstructionist bloc instead of working toward real reform like the party I am a member of.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

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

He's DownSyndrome. He can't even support the Southeast's right to elect its own governor.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

If the region chooses it, then it IS regional representation. Are you really that dumb?

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

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

Of course not. Not voting this amendment wouldn't prohibit anything, as the possibility does not exist currently.

The problem is, when you want to come back, you've got only one referendum with, of course, a greater chance to have an anti-regional majority...
So, when you've chosen to go one way, you can't really come back.

It makes me think about Denmark's and Ireland's referendums in the EU.
Provided they result in a "yes", all is good and you don't ask again: it's for eternity, sort of. But if it's a "no", you vote again...

This is not about regional rights, here. This is about opening a possibility for anti-regional rights Atlasians in the regions to lower regional power and/or representation on the federal level.

In the end, you may promote a 5-region partnership, for example... using a low turnout, once, among regional-rights defenders.

(FTR, I've voted in favour of the Amendment on Amendements. So I'm not "just another RPPer". Check my record and the Mideast Assembly. And check my icy exchanges with DWTL... I recall these points for those not used to my very, very scarce posts at the national level).

These partnerships aren't permanent. If Marokai would like to see myself or Xahar write up a few more amendments I would be glad to. I've already suggested raising the vote needed to enter a partnership and we obviously need restrictions on unassociated partnerships (MW+ME and MW+NE without ME+NE, for example) and a method of withdrawing from these partnerships, which I suggested should be a simple majority vote. I don't see this proposition as at all harmful to regional representation. All it does is expand regional representation and regional rights.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I do. This is obviously a conspiracy to deny regions there representation.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I do. This is obviously a conspiracy to deny regions there representation.

How pathetic, and how expected...

The only thing pathetic here is your sarcasm-detecting abilities. How expected...

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

So you oppose regional rights.

OK.

Don't worry, we don't need the agreement of the non-Senator to make it pass.

DWTL's support is worth than more 1 vote.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

So you oppose regional rights.

OK.

Don't worry, we don't need the agreement of the non-Senator to make it pass.

DWTL's support is worth than more 1 vote.

It actually worths 0 currently.

No, it's worth about 10-15.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

Bingo.

[Alexander Hamilton]

     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.

I recall Dan Adams ranting about wanting FPTP. Maybe you can go ahead and do that, too.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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

My God, you are a f-cking idiot! I swear, if anyone actually votes for you...