Lose ends with the Constitution -IMPORTANT...PLEASE READ

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

The Senate filing period ends before your proposed vote does, so it is not possible to have another vote on Senate regions.  Plus hughento's recent poll shows that people don't want another vote on Senate region by a large margin.  

The regions maps has been approved by the members of this forum repeatedly.  It doesn't have exactly 10 states per region.  Tough.  There is nothing that says that is has to....only an Amendment that has already been rejected.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

When was the amendment NOT passed? As far as I am aware...everyone voted FOR amendments 1 through 5.

We were asked which of four versions of Amendment IV we wanted, one of which was the version in your draft (The 10-states plan), another was the set of maps that won the vote that was taken among many possible maps (The "D&E plan").  The D&E plan was preferred by a clear majority of voters over your version of the amendment.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The regions maps has been approved by the members of this forum repeatedly.  It doesn't have exactly 10 states per region.  Tough.  There is nothing that says that is has to....only an Amendment that has already been rejected.

Well.....I don't give a sweet damn if they do have 10 state each....as long as one doesn't have 15....and the other has 7 or something.

The main issue I don't like (and I notice you fail to address) is the DISTRICTS! One has 14.....the other has 9?!?!?

Oh come on.....

The districts map does need to be changed to balance the populations.  I personally think it should be changed before the Senate elections.  But people seem to want to elect a Senate first using unbalanced districts and have them decide how it should be changed.  That's OK with me...its really not that important.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

....
The Constitution does not say that regions must have 10 states.  This was only included in an Amendment which DID NOT PASS.  Instead, we passed an amendment under which regions did not have 10 states.  It is done.  

When was the amendment NOT passed? As far as I am aware...everyone voted FOR amendments 1 through 5.

We were asked which of four versions of Amendment IV we wanted, one of which was the version in your draft (The 10-states plan), another was the set of maps that won the vote that was taken among many possible maps (The "D&E plan").  The D&E plan was preferred by a clear majority of voters over your version of the amendment.

I was under the impression that just the STATES themselves were subject to change....not the whole amendment. I was fully aware (even when I was writting it) that those pretty little maps in the constitution were not going to last....(those were Supersoulty's maps of course.....not mine)......but I never knew the whole amendment went out the window. And for reasons no one has yet explained to me.

We can all admit this wasn't very clear.  But people voted for a map that didn't have 10-state regions.  I think we can infer that they we thus voting NOT to include the clause in the amendment that required 10-state regions.  It just wouldn't make sense otherwise.