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

[Fritz]

....
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.

Actually, the Amendment did pass, and I quote:

On the Fourth Amendment, there were 9 first preference votes for Plan C, 6 first preference votes for Plan A, 1 first preference vote for Plan B, 6 abstentions and and one ballot that I have to reject because it does not state a first preference (Demrepdan's). I hereby declare Plan C and the Amendment to have passed.

The Amendment passed, but the map which passed contradicts the amendment.

Denrepdan, I really do appreciate your take-charge attitude here, it is sorely needed.  But being the stickler for procedural detail that I am, I most express my opinion that the vote on the UNFINISHED version of the Constitution should have never taken place.  Of course people think it is "set in stone": they voted on it!!!  I really strongly feel that an official vote needs to be taken on the COMPLETE, FINAL VERSION of the Constitution.  The previous vote was meaningless, things are being changed that were not voted upon.  For example, the term limit for Governors- that has not been mentioned anywhere in the voting procedure for this Constitution, now you are going to add it.

Please, once the final version of the Constitution is available, submit IT for a vote.  If we are going to do this, let's do it right.

JLD

[Fritz]

Ten months is extremely excessive.  The population here is rather fluid.  I would suggest every two months, as often as an election occurs.  At the very least, every four.

I do not think the requirement that the change take place after the next election is necessary.  With as I have mentioned, the fluid nature of the population here, it would make more sense for districts to be set immediately for the next election.

I don't think that a 2/3 majority of the Senate is necessary, a simple majority should suffice.

[Fritz]

I do not think the requirement that the change take place after the next election is necessary.  With as I have mentioned, the fluid nature of the population here, it would make more sense for districts to be set immediately for the next election.

That's what I intended, actually. The new proposal would not take effect as soon as its passed, it would take effect for the next election. This is so that a Senator's district changes at the end of his or her term, rather than in the middle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I misread you.  I thought it said the change take place after the next election; in fact it says at the next election.

[Fritz]

Another thing that is missing from the Constitution is, on what basis ratification would be accepted.  The U.S. Constitution had a clause requiring 9 of the original 13 states to ratify the Constitution before it went into effect.  A similiar clause is called for here, IMHO, and I don't think a simple majority is sufficient in this case.