Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2019, 06:11:43 am
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30 Print
Author Topic: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)  (Read 38292 times)
NeverAgain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2015, 04:46:35 pm »

3 Regions sounds good to me. I also say we make a constitutional amendment banning attempts to secede.
Logged
Clyde1998
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,853
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2015, 05:04:12 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This is an Admendment.
I will, obviously, object to this.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,489
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2015, 05:59:59 pm »

I personally prefer three regions.

When it comes to secession I think the two extremes here are both stupid. If a region wishes to secede it should be able to do so, through fair and proper procedure. Completely banning the concept or saying we shouldn't interfere, ever, are both shortsighted approaches.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,752
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2015, 06:40:13 pm »

proposed amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

can i withdraw this and re´ntroduce it later, so truman's amendment can go first?
Logged
NeverAgain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2015, 07:00:39 pm »
« Edited: October 08, 2015, 07:21:27 pm by Speaker NeverAgain »

I personally prefer three regions.

When it comes to secession I think the two extremes here are both stupid. If a region wishes to secede it should be able to do so, through fair and proper procedure. Completely banning the concept or saying we shouldn't interfere, ever, are both shortsighted approaches.
I agree partially. The Atlasian democracy has been and is based on fair representation, and with that goes the opportunity to free speech and talking to your representative. Secession is an extreme and frankly,  disastrous idea for Atlasia, and even the Northeast. I do agree that we should not ban the concept completely or ban the threat there of, but there is a limit. The people of Atlasia don't need government bureaucrats attempting to fight against its own government, just to have laws that they want enacted faster. If we allow secession, we are allowing any and all groups who feel they "do not belong" in Atlasia to just skip right out. With this in mind I am proposing a counter amendment to CC's.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know this was badly worded, I will fix it if anyone supports this.
Logged
Classic Conservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,645
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2015, 07:08:17 pm »

I can only support this Admendment if you get rid of the national referendum and then change the wording to 'local assembly and have been passed by a referendum.
Logged
Classic Conservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,645
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2015, 07:09:26 pm »

But I still believe that the regions signed on to be part of this Union and with that they don't have the right to secede. Much, like the Confederacy and the Northeast is the Confederacy at this time.
Logged
NeverAgain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2015, 07:20:55 pm »

I can only support this Admendment if you get rid of the national referendum and then change the wording to 'local assembly and have been passed by a referendum.
Changed.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,752
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2015, 07:28:03 pm »

But I still believe that the regions signed on to be part of this Union and with that they don't have the right to secede. Much, like the Confederacy and the Northeast is the Confederacy at this time.

tsss

the vast, vast majority of present-day northeasterners were not around at the founding of atlasia. and even if they had been, everything is entirely different now than it was then.
Logged
Classic Conservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,645
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2015, 07:30:46 pm »

But I still believe that the regions signed on to be part of this Union and with that they don't have the right to secede. Much, like the Confederacy and the Northeast is the Confederacy at this time.

tsss

the vast, vast majority of present-day northeasterners were not around at the founding of atlasia. and even if they had been, everything is entirely different now than it was then.
I understand that sentiment but regions should only secede if the government is infringing on their citizens basic fined mental rights. Please tell me how the Atlasian government has infringed on your rights?
Logged
NeverAgain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2015, 07:33:58 pm »

But I still believe that the regions signed on to be part of this Union and with that they don't have the right to secede. Much, like the Confederacy and the Northeast is the Confederacy at this time.

tsss

the vast, vast majority of present-day northeasterners were not around at the founding of atlasia. and even if they had been, everything is entirely different now than it was then.
Yes. It is. Does that mean the Northeast should secede though? Also, how do you feel on my amendment? As you and CC are the most outspoken on the issue, albeit from different sides, if you guys agree on this, (with modifications) the hope for this convention will grow stronger.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,304


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2015, 07:40:27 pm »

I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:



Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?
Logged
NeverAgain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2015, 07:45:48 pm »

I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:



Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?
Looks good. I would consider Kansas being part of the south, Minnesota + Iowa being part of the West, and Maryland, Delaware, + (possibly) Missouri part of the Northeast. Just a few ideas.
Logged
Classic Conservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,645
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2015, 07:46:48 pm »

I personally believe that the Midwest should go with the Mideast and the Pacific with the South. Why would you put two failing regions together you would get a giant barely thriving region. It doesn't make sense to put two failing regions together and then expect them to thrive, if you put a failing region together and a thriving one you will get a even more thriving region. Also, we should all start talking about devolution, but we've been to busy with the independence and seccesion debate.
Logged
NeverAgain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 08, 2015, 07:55:09 pm »

Give or take MN or IA.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,347
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 08, 2015, 07:57:32 pm »

The CARCA map is fine with me.

Look, population changes are going to happen anyway and half the population is going to be purged from the rolls if they fail to vote in October (I know, I'm exaggerating, but I want to drive the point that current population numbers offer no guarantee moving forward), so we really should stop thinking of the old regions as they were, otherwise the whole consolidation process might end up in the ludicrous mentality of "But I want my region to the one to survive, screw the rest!".
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,752
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 08, 2015, 07:58:03 pm »
« Edited: October 08, 2015, 08:00:44 pm by low-energy loser evergreen »

I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:



Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?

the blue region would have probably 85-90% of activity. this is a silly map.

Also, how do you feel on my amendment? As you and CC are the most outspoken on the issue, albeit from different sides, if you guys agree on this, (with modifications) the hope for this convention will grow stronger.
at least it establishes a clear procedure?
but nah i'm not a big fan of the senate (especially, but not only, the current senate) being the arbiters of independence.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,304


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 08, 2015, 08:07:42 pm »

I personally believe that the Midwest should go with the Mideast and the Pacific with the South. Why would you put two failing regions together you would get a giant barely thriving region. It doesn't make sense to put two failing regions together and then expect them to thrive, if you put a failing region together and a thriving one you will get a even more thriving region.

Personally, I'm wary of tying our new Regional map too closely to today's demographics. A merged South-Pacific, for example, would consist of ~23 states, including PR, while the Northeast would still have 10. At present, the vast majority of active citizens reside in and around New England and the Great Lakes, but who's to say it will be like that a year from now? It would be unfortunate to have to call another ConCon in two years because we bet on demographics remaining the same forever.

Griffin made a good point during the CARCA meetings that I think bears repeating: it's highly unlikely that active citizens are going to stay squeezed together in one region when there are opportunities to win office and effect legislation elsewhere. If each region only has 5 or 6 offices, ambitious citizens aren't all going to crowd into the Northeast when they could take advantage of a vacancy in, say, the South. The reason this isn't happening now is that there are so few active citizens compared to the number of offices; if we simultaneously reduce the number of positions and Regions, however, we should see the population balance out.

Logged
NeverAgain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2015, 08:12:10 pm »

Also, how do you feel on my amendment? As you and CC are the most outspoken on the issue, albeit from different sides, if you guys agree on this, (with modifications) the hope for this convention will grow stronger.
at least it establishes a clear procedure?
but nah i'm not a big fan of the senate (especially, but not only, the current senate) being the arbiters of independence.
You would support a referendum then?
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2015, 08:17:46 pm »

I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:



Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?

the blue region would have probably 85-90% of activity. this is a silly map.

Maps have been a contentious area of the debate for years. I would caution the delegates from becoming too fixated on a detail that has little impact in reality. Yes, a majority of individuals live in the blue region. However, I would assume (as has been proposed in the past) that all citizens will have the opportunity to have one free move, should a reduction in regions occur. This should hopefully counter concerns of one region becoming too overpopulated, though unless we put initial caps on the regions, may be uncontrollable.

Something to think about.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,955


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2015, 09:58:50 pm »

I like the map from the standpoint of having three regions that make sense geographically.

The populations in the regions can be adapted to.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,641
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2015, 10:03:53 pm »

The number of regions I prefer is obviously a matter of public record, and quite frankly, the original reason why we're even having this ConCon in the first place!
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,539
Italy



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2015, 12:21:40 am »
« Edited: October 09, 2015, 12:52:59 am by Speaker Cris »

Evergreen retired his amendment.
Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2015, 01:57:47 am »

I will not support anything less than three regions. If regions are to serve the purpose stated by the proponents of the two region proposal, there would not be enough offices to achieve that with such a proposal. In the South we have had two back to back elections for Governor, where the losing candidate has departed from the game. We need an appropriate balance and two regions just cuts too deep in this regard.

I think we have a solid proposal built a three region map and that is where we should be going.
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,699
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2015, 02:45:33 am »

I'm glad to see the debate has already been started up! Sorry to be a tad late to it. There's much to discuss, so I'll address several of the points together:



Three regions is best. What's the real difference between 2 regions and 3 regions, relative to now? They're both radical changes from what we currently have. If going from 5 to 3 regions isn't good enough, I don't think taking off another one will save us.



I think the CARCA map is a pretty good start, but I do have doubts regarding Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, and Nyman, DC. Specifically, I ask my fellow delegates, why would we move Minnesota and Iowa away from it's current region (most Midwestern states are in the new western region), to a region that, as Evergreen rightly points out, already has about twice as much activity as the other regions combined (at least as far as the Regional Governments Board)?

(Also, I feel weird putting DC, Maryland, and Delaware in the South. I suppose I'd allow it given the population disparities I mentioned above, but still, it feels as odd as putting North Carolina in the Northeast, or Michigan in the Pacific.)



Regarding secession, I think it's an important subject to discuss, but I agree we shouldn't beat the horse dead. For the record, I'm against the amendments of both the Pacific and Northeast Speakers, because I think they both go too far.

Let's back this up a bit, shall we? To the fundamental philosophical principles. What did you expect? We're building a constitution, not a sandwich. As you may know, it is my belief that government power is fundamentally derived from the rights of individual persons, and it is merely the government's job to safeguard those rights. Therefore, why can't they choose what government they want to safeguard those rights? Speaker Conservative pointed out a rather negative example of secession in 1861, but an example of secession in 1776 could also be brought up.

I'm not supporting or opposing Northeastern secession, or any specific secession (or, rather, that's not my purpose with this post), I'm just saying that I don't see the philosophical support for indiscriminately condemning every single one. The Federalists, my party, have always been a party of regional rights, so I'm surprised that the amendment comes from us. Explain to me what gives the federal government the right to keep regions from seceding under any and all circumstances and I'll change my tune, but until then I'll have to oppose that amendment.

Likewise, Speaker Evergreen's amendment also puts it in a one-size-fits-all manner. Maybe I would support it if it was more detailed--perhaps only of the secession attempt was supported by a federally-verified referendum that got 60% or something like that, but this could be via a 50%+1 vote, or even a legislative vote--heck, it would've made TNF's Communist Theme Park completely constitutional (unless of course someone opposed it, as they did, in which case it would've caused a Constitutional Crisis of ridiculous proportions due to the vagueness of the amendment).



In the South we have had two back to back elections for Governor, where the losing candidate has departed from the game.

That doesn't do it justice. We have had 3 straight region-wide single-winner elections where the loser has left: Flo > DeadPrez, PiT > Hagrid, and someone who's name I can't recall > DarTheBearNC. In fact, the last loser of a region-wide single-winner election in the South to not leave the game or go inactive immediately after is all the way back in February, a certain someone from North Carolina.

Not that it's that important of a distinction, mind you, it's just that it's a more impressive fact counting the Senate.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC