Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 21, 2020, 09:31:57 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED) (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)  (Read 38696 times)
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« on: October 08, 2015, 03:58:27 pm »

     I don't think secession should be allowed too easily, but at the same time the legalistic current in recent years has led to people being prosecuted for joke secessions. Secession can lead to important social change, I know about that firsthand. If it is allowed, it gives dissatisfied citizens an avenue to be heard.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2015, 03:37:52 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.

     Perhaps allow it, but at a high threshold? When 90% of people in a region support secession (i.e. Slovenia), telling them that they're not allowed to is meaningless; the will is there to just do it anyway.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2015, 10:26:06 am »

     Nay
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2015, 04:11:41 pm »

I oppose NeverAgain's amendment. Should a region choose to secede, they should not have to go through the senate, much less the president, to do so.

     As I was saying before, if people really want to secede then they will just do it, regardless of what the federal government has to say about it. The idea of regulating secession is an exercise in parody.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2015, 01:54:47 pm »

     I would entertain a middle-ground amendment, but not this one.

     Nay.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2015, 09:54:31 pm »

Abstain, for the same reasons that JCL articulated.

Just to clarify on this amendment, would this be a national vote or a regional vote?

Regional. I don't see why other regions should have a say, but specifically not an equal say.

I would refer you to a line in the Declaration of Independence that supporters of the right secession seem to have forgotten about:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but Classic Conservative's amendment says nothing about that.

Again, and this is applicable as a response to what Senator Truman said and a reminder to everyone, this is NOT just about the current Northeastern independence movement. Truman and others seemingly think it is, but it isn't. I encourage everyone to vote on this generically, don't vote for unquestioned federal control over the regions just because you don't like the NNP, their specific cause, or one of their members.

What is the source of government power? The people. It's only with their consent that the power is legitimate. I still have no clue where the right of the federal government to rule over them without any challenge comes from (hint: nowhere), and while I understand the concept that it's a relationship that the regions voluntarily entered, I don't see anywhere that the individual people in question entered into that agreement. And rights are given to individuals, governments (both regional and federal) are only there to safeguard those rights--so it's more than simply a question of regional powers, but one of rights and the very nature of government.

     In a representative Republic, the government is constituted to represent the people. If the people in a certain region of that Republic do not want to be represented by that government, then it undermines the basis of the nation's government.

     Pragmatically though, as I was saying before, people who really want to secede will go ahead and do so anyway. Unconditionally refusing to entertain their concerns because of some platitudes about patriotism and "preserving the union" only invites needless violence and death.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2015, 01:54:13 pm »

I think what we're dealing with here is an honest difference of opinion as to what constitutes the "consent of the governed." As I see it, when someone registers to be a citizen of Atlasia (which is a voluntary act, unlike being born in, say, South Sudan), they are agreeing to obey the laws of the nation. Every game has rules, and Atlasia exists to simulate the politics of a federal republic. If you'd rather have a Region-centered confederation, that's fine: I just happen to disagree.

I will note, however, that secession has historically been incompatible with strong national governments, and history is riven with examples of countries that have collapsed as a result of successful separatist movements. The Holy Roman Empire, the Federal Republic of Central America, the United Arab Republic, and potentially the E.U. as well only a few examples of political unions that collapsed due to their inability to prevent secession.

     The voluntary act note is a critical difference in how people view the game. Exegetically, it is altogether voluntary; people simply come to exist in Atlasia when they register and likewise cease to exist when they deregister. Diegetically, Atlasia is a country like any other, and there is citizenship beyond just registering to vote in Atlas Fantasy Elections.

     While it may seem like a minor point, whether you approach the citizenship question exegetically or diegetically completely changes the nature of the question, and changes how citizens of Atlasia must relate to the government and to the Republic itself. There are fine arguments either way, but this is something we should consider when it leads to impasses like this one.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2015, 01:55:47 pm »

     Also,

Aye, precisely on evergreen's reasoning.

     I change my vote to aye in agreement with this.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2015, 04:00:52 pm »

     Aye

Nay

Again, no point in having a federal government if we are going to just allow succession. I'll only support this if we shift focus off of actually forming a government to just creating an articles of confederation where the federal government has no real power. the government will have no means to enforce anything if a region can just leave whenever they wish and the Feds have no power to stop it or reclaim their land.

     FWIW, I would be down to form a confederated state.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2015, 01:45:50 pm »

     Aye. This is getting tiring, though.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2015, 01:53:44 pm »

     Aye
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2015, 01:48:33 pm »

Wonderful, so we embed secession in the constitution.

This convention has failed in its most important task, preserving a united Atlasia, both for this generation of Atlasians, and for generations of Atlasians yet unborn.

At this point perhaps we should think about making Atlasia a confederacy without centralized power. The scary thing is, I bet a majority would support that. It's like they're trying to kill Atlasia off by making it useless to participate in. Who saw that coming? Tongue

But yes, let's not consider a two region system. 3 is the way to go. It's a no brainier, although I can see us dropping the ball yet again.

Yes, I thought this constitutional convention was supposed to save Atlasia, not give secessionists and malcontents a vehicle by which to legally pursue independence every two weeks.   

     Given the interest in creating a less specific Constitution, the specifics of secession would be left up to the Senate to iron out. Considering how many of the ayes were of the sort that it "should be allowed under some circumstances, but not willy-nilly", it's likely that the rules concerning secession would be quite stringent. There is little point in freaking out over it.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2015, 06:37:35 pm »

I urge the existence of 4 regions.

     The geography of Atlasia does lend itself rather naturally to four regions. Especially if one abandons the notion of equal states in each region, which wasn't even actually followed once we introduced Puerto Rico and Oceania to the mixed.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2015, 01:40:11 pm »

1. 5
2. 4
3. 3
4. 0
5. 2
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2015, 02:21:15 pm »

I object, I cannot support that map beacuse of regional instability at that time with both the Pacific and to some extent the Midwest. I will propose a map later.

     I take this to mean that you plan to propose a map that differs substantially from this one? In that case, I would like to see your proposal before voting on the amendment.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #15 on: October 27, 2015, 10:16:35 pm »

     Aye, so we can go somewhere with this.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2015, 02:40:58 pm »

If my amendment fails, I suggest we hold a "CARCA Redux" in which every delegate can propose a map and the Convention selects one via STV. Obviously, the principle vote to adopt a 3-Region map would still be binding, so any proposals that have more or less than 3 Regions would be discarded.

     It would take time to hold such a vote, but I think it would be worth it. There is just too much confusion about the map right now and we need to get back on the same page.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2015, 03:13:15 pm »

     Aye
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2015, 04:31:47 pm »

     I don't really see the point in adding more playable areas. The best argument for adding Canada was that Canadians could register where they live; my question is did any Canadians actually care? I'm pretty sure that there aren't any posters from the Caribbean to take advantage of those areas being added.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2015, 02:49:52 pm »

     Nay

     I don't really see the point in adding more playable areas. The best argument for adding Canada was that Canadians could register where they live; my question is did any Canadians actually care? I'm pretty sure that there aren't any posters from the Caribbean to take advantage of those areas being added.

The best argument at the time behind the actual motivation was to add more playable areas and choice to the game in order to allow more people to live wherever they decided. Ultimately, anywhere from 5-10% of the game's population resided in Canada at any given point. Again, I'm just baffled at the amount of resistance there is to adding perfectly playable land to this new game when there are literally no tangible negative repercussions in doing so. "Oh no, empty space" - and what if there is? There always has been, except for that one time that somebody actually took the initiative to fully fill each state with people. I'm clueless as to why everybody is suddenly upset about it now.

     Choice is nice, but this is extremely pointless. There has been enough tension over state registration, which sort of makes sense to have in that our geography reflects the United States. Even that much is basically tenuous. Adding Canada and the Caribbean has no negatives, but it also has no positives.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2015, 11:47:35 am »

     Yankee's right, this is something that should be left up to the regions. If a region wants to change its name, it shouldn't have to go through the Senate and a ratification vote.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2015, 04:57:31 pm »

     I don't like consolidation, but I understand that it may be necessary to meet the challenges at hand. I don't see a compelling argument for removing large swathes of regional autonomy. If anything, that would tend to have the opposite effect of what we need.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2015, 03:02:48 pm »

     Aye. In reality, it is not a decision to be undertaken lightly.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2015, 01:39:52 pm »

So what are the rules on letting the regions decide? Will that be determined seperately? Because there are clear disagreements in this Convention about that. This ConCon was called to make this nation better that before, and this is something that would make Atlasia worse that before, even if just slightly.

If it needs to be officially proposed, than I hereby offically propose to make it where the regions can decide their own name.

     Indeed, I am not comfortable with regional names being defined in the Constitution. They have historically been a matter that was decided internally within the regions, and lots of debate and activity has resulted from this choice being devolved to the regions. I believe that they should continue to have that choice.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,875
United States


« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2015, 11:30:59 pm »

[3] West, South, Northeast
[   ] Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin
[   ] McGovern, Kefauver, Kennedy
[   ] Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton
[4] Bgwah, Duke, Scott
[2] West, South, North
[1] Let the Regions name themselves
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
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