Senate Bill: Fix the Regions Amendment (Rejected)

[President Tyrion]

Can you split up the three-fifths and the plebiscite thing? I feel the former is very controversial and may poison pill the latter.

[Maxwell]

Can you split up the three-fifths and the plebiscite thing? I feel the former is very controversial and may poison pill the latter.

Yeah, that makes sense, Fine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: Vote once minimum debate time expires w/o positive feedback.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

We need a topic line change here again, Mr. VP.

[TNF]

AYE

[Maxwell]

AYE

[bore]

Aye

[Gass3268]

Aye

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh god no no another one of his. This is the third Nappy bill in a row on the noticeboard now that six is vacant.


Since the amendment is no danger of losing now, I am going to vote on principle here.

NAY

[Sbane]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

5-3-0-2 w/ two days left.

With Napoleon and Xahar not voting.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

one day left here.


Like I said, the music is what keeps me sane through these.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yea

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 57:24 by Maxwell:

Aye (6): bore, Gass3268, Maxwell, Tmthforu94, TNF and Xahar
Nay (3): NC Yankee, sbane and TJ in Cleve
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Napoleon

The amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So what is next here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I thought this was suppose to be a pretty big fing deal here?

[Maxwell]

The next question is how the Senate looks after this. The concern is that this would lower the number of regions and then the Senate would have minus however many Senators the regions lose. Would this be something discussed in the new Regional process, or should we amend it into this thing?

[tmthforu94]

The next question is how the Senate looks after this. The concern is that this would lower the number of regions and then the Senate would have minus however many Senators the regions lose. Would this be something discussed in the new Regional process, or should we amend it into this thing?

The idea I've heard the most (which is what I support) is if we were to reduce it to three, entitle each region to two Senate seats and let the regions handle the elections for it (then 6 at-large seats). It's a question of whether we include that part in this amendment or send it through once we might potentially reduce.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I need to think on the question of whether to do it here or seperately.


As for the possibilities, there is what Tmth said or some form of bicameralism.

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't like the idea of enlarging the Senate right now; changing the regions means we're putting quite enough on our plate as it is without having to make changes to the rules of the Senate at the same time to accommodate it. At least in the short term, I think the best solution would be to have the governors draw five districts from which to elect members of the Senate; this would preserve the continuity of the Senate as well as empowering governors.

[Maxwell]

I don't like the idea of enlarging the Senate right now; changing the regions means we're putting quite enough on our plate as it is without having to make changes to the rules of the Senate at the same time to accommodate it. At least in the short term, I think the best solution would be to have the governors draw five districts from which to elect members of the Senate; this would preserve the continuity of the Senate as well as empowering governors.

We'll be lowering the number of offices by (someone help me out with this) about 10. 2 extra Senate seats is cool in my view. As for the Senate rules, what changes are you referring to?

[tmthforu94]

There are (I believe) 23 members currently in regional legislatures - a reduction to three (Assuming each would have 5 to 7 members) would mean 15-21, so a net loss of 2 to 8.

There are currently about 14 in the executive and judicial branches - a reduction to three regions would put that at 9, so a net loss of 5.

That creates a potential net loss of positions from 7 to 13. So even if we slightly expand the Senate to accommodate the changes, we're still losing seats overall.

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't like the idea of enlarging the Senate right now; changing the regions means we're putting quite enough on our plate as it is without having to make changes to the rules of the Senate at the same time to accommodate it. At least in the short term, I think the best solution would be to have the governors draw five districts from which to elect members of the Senate; this would preserve the continuity of the Senate as well as empowering governors.

We'll be lowering the number of offices by (someone help me out with this) about 10. 2 extra Senate seats is cool in my view. As for the Senate rules, what changes are you referring to?

Right now, the rules of the Senate are designed for a Senate with ten members. Adding members to the Senate would require the rules to be rewritten to reflect that.

Moreover, there would need to be a number of special elections, as the whole basis for electing Senators would be changing; not only would there need to be new elections for six regional seats, but also an election for another at-large seat. Considering all the other changes that will happen with regional consolidation, I feel like it's worthwhile to keep some things as close to the same as possible, at least for now.