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

[Emsworth]

And I HOPE we will quickly settle the regions and districts dispute.

But remember; All regions must have TEN STATES (and one with 10 states that includes DC)......and all DISTRICT must be EVENLY distributed according to REGISTERED VOTERS! And no district may have more than TWO members than another.

Thank you very much for showing some leadership here! Its about time that somebody stepped in to solve the problems. But that doesn't mean that I agree with you, of course. There was a thread in which regions and districts were voted upon. Lewis' Plan "D" won. Now, because it won, it must be incorporated. However, the two-voter difference rule cannot be applied to it. The rule should apply only at the time of the reapportionment, and not at other times. Otherwise, each time a new voter registers, reapportionment would be required. Therefore, the requirement applies at the time the map is created; and at the time of creation, there was no objection to the map. So, Lewis' Plan D Map, I believe must be included. As soon as a new Senate meets, it can redo that particular map.

The Regions map is an altogether different question. There was never a vote on a particular map to be used for regions, as opposed to districts. In a vote, individuals indicated that Plan E should be used for the regions, but that vote has been controversial. So I am open to the Secretary doing whatever is necessary to fix the problem... BUT, the filing deadline is tomorrow! The vote on the regions cannot possibly be held before tomorrow. So, I leave it to the Secretary to determine a solution, for that is why we have such officers.

To reiterate: Lewis's Plan D should be used for Districts. I am open to suggestions from the Secretary on the Regions plan.

[Emsworth]

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.

I am very sorry to say that you must take responsibility for this problem. By creating "Amendments" in the original constitution, you confused various people. The vote was set up on the basis that the Constitution was one body of work, while the Amendments were another.

[Emsworth]

But anyway.......Emsworth....I must ask you for a favor.

First of all.....as I've said....I have within my possession the FINAL draft of the Constitution....to be unveiled soon...but not too soon. Evidently....everyone hates the "Fourth Amendment".....so....I would like you to re-write the amendment since everyone doesn't want it. Re-write it the way people want it.....and include the regions and districts and their respective states within.

I understand the reason for which the Amendments were so named. It did cause confusion for some people, while others understood it, so I don't blame you at all. It was just an unfortunate incident.

For the Fourth Amendment, I have the following proposal (which is only tentative, and definitely subject to change upon your suggestions):

Section 1: Each region shall have the right to govern itself and conduct its regional elections as its residents wish. Each Region may establish such elected and appointed positions as it desires, but each region shall have a Governor who shall act as Chief Representative of the Region, fill vacancies for Regional seats in the Senate, and perform such other functions as the Region shall require. The Governor shall be elected by the people of the region for a term of not more than six months (but the Region may provide for unelected individuals to succeed to the office and complete the term in the case of a vacancy.)

No regional law is to contradict the Constitution regarding federal elections or regarding suffrage. Districts are entities constituted solely for the purposes of federal elections and shall therefore not have any local government or authority.

Section 2: Each state and the District of Columbia shall be a part of one of five regions; no state may be divided between different Regions. The Regions shall in all cases be contiguous.  The names of the Regions shall be determined by their members, but until they do so, then the Senate may name the regions.  

The Regions of the United States for the Atlas Forum shall be: []

Section 3: Each state and the District of Columbia shall be a part of one of five Districts; no state may be divided between different Districts. A census of registered voters shall be administered every ten months which will determine the districts. The Senate may determine and change the boundaries of the districts by a two-thirds vote following each such cenus, but each such change shall take effect at the election following the passage of the change. All districts must be contiguous. At the time of a change in district boundaries, no district's population may exceed another's by more than two voters, [proposed: but this requirement may be waived to the extent necessary to satisfy the rule that no state can be divided between multiple districts and the rule that districts must be contiguous]. Districts shall be numbered from one to five as the Senate shall provide.

Until the Senate provides otherwise, the Districts of the United States for the Atlas Forum shall be: []
----
Comments?

[Emsworth]

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.

Ten months was originally Demrepdan's proposal. I would agree that, at every Presidential election, a census be held.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

Again, this was taken from the Forum Affairs Secretary's draft. This can also be changed.

[Emsworth]

Dan my fellow sec
I am offended
I merlly put up the maps that were voted upon (and I personally didn't vote foe them). I accept any vote of the people. some of you do not.
Emsworth, Lewis and myself told you this will happan.

I'm sorry if I offended you Dunn.....but what everyone doesn't understand....is it doesn't MATTER what the majority think! SURE they voted for those maps! BUT....those maps are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So they shouldn't have been voted on.

If anything.....(and this may take a while)....I would suggest that everyone make as many maps as they want......and they must follow the constitutional guidelines. THEN we vote on those maps....that should all correspond to the rules set in the constitution....

You must remember......all this voting on maps crap......took place a LONG time ago.....even before the constitution was changed to included both Regions and Districts......

The District Map was perfectly constitutional. It should not be overturned.

[Emsworth]

Dan my fellow sec
I am offended
I merlly put up the maps that were voted upon (and I personally didn't vote foe them). I accept any vote of the people. some of you do not.
Emsworth, Lewis and myself told you this will happan.

I'm sorry if I offended you Dunn.....but what everyone doesn't understand....is it doesn't MATTER what the majority think! SURE they voted for those maps! BUT....those maps are UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So they shouldn't have been voted on.

If anything.....(and this may take a while)....I would suggest that everyone make as many maps as they want......and they must follow the constitutional guidelines. THEN we vote on those maps....that should all correspond to the rules set in the constitution....

You must remember......all this voting on maps crap......took place a LONG time ago.....even before the constitution was changed to included both Regions and Districts......

The District Map was perfectly constitutional. It should not be overturned.

The district maps are supposed to not have a difference in population greater than 2 voters, those do, therefore they aren't constitutional.

The differences were fine in terms of residents, I believe, at the time of creation. In any event, Demrepdan has yet to do something about the maps, though progress has been made on PV.