Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 08, 2019, 11:19:54 am
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Powers of federal govt (Senate) and of regional govts. (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Print
Author Topic: Powers of federal govt (Senate) and of regional govts. (Debating)  (Read 15806 times)
Senator Cris
Cris
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,539
Italy



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 09, 2015, 08:07:05 am »
« edited: November 09, 2015, 08:44:34 am by Speaker Cris »

This thread will be about powers denied to Senate and regions.

That's what Constitution says about this matter:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,627
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2015, 11:10:52 am »

Perhaps the most important thing we can do here is to make it much harder for the Senate to pass amendments since people have to vote on amending subsection B, Clause A (c) every two days or something. Maybe amendments should require an 8/10 vote and be subject to a Presidential veto?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2015, 03:33:33 pm »

Perhaps the most important thing we can do here is to make it much harder for the Senate to pass amendments since people have to vote on amending subsection B, Clause A (c) every two days or something. Maybe amendments should require an 8/10 vote and be subject to a Presidential veto?

     As someone who spent a long time in regional government and got a bit of an outsider's perspective, I must say that the frequency with which the Senate proposed bizarre amendments was enervating. In the long run, I suspect it contributed heavily to voter fatigue.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,627
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2015, 04:46:55 pm »

Perhaps the most important thing we can do here is to make it much harder for the Senate to pass amendments since people have to vote on amending subsection B, Clause A (c) every two days or something. Maybe amendments should require an 8/10 vote and be subject to a Presidential veto?

     As someone who spent a long time in regional government and got a bit of an outsider's perspective, I must say that the frequency with which the Senate proposed bizarre amendments was enervating. In the long run, I suspect it contributed heavily to voter fatigue.

I agree. Not to mention the average turnout was about three votes a region.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,616
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 09, 2015, 11:20:47 pm »
« Edited: October 10, 2015, 04:05:06 pm by Assemblyman JCL and the geologist »

Clause five of section five of Article One  should be changed and all but immigration should devolve to the regions.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,158
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2015, 09:27:41 am »

The problem (which I think is continued by just changing each individual section individually) was that the constitution basically stipulated almost every important detail of atlasia so to change anything had to be done via a constitution (there is no reason, for example, that the constitution rather than legislation should stipulate the activity standard for voting in elections, say). That plus the awful quality of the writing meant the flow of amendments.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2015, 01:11:58 pm »

The problem (which I think is continued by just changing each individual section individually) was that the constitution basically stipulated almost every important detail of atlasia so to change anything had to be done via a constitution (there is no reason, for example, that the constitution rather than legislation should stipulate the activity standard for voting in elections, say). That plus the awful quality of the writing meant the flow of amendments.

This is exactly why I've been pushing to strike the text of the current Constitution in full. We need a complete re-write, not piecemeal reform.
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 #7 on: October 10, 2015, 03:24:36 pm »

Amendments being subject to presidential veto is a terrible idea. I agree that there should be a bit higher threshold for pushing Amendments down for ratification, but to the extent that is done depends heavily on what legislature we end up with when all is said and done.

This is exactly why I've been pushing to strike the text of the current Constitution in full. We need a complete re-write, not piecemeal reform.

Which is why I agree with this ^. It's almost impossible to have the Amendment process in detail when we don't even know the legislative system we're going to agree to.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2015, 04:26:33 pm »

I offer the following amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,539
Italy



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2015, 05:10:46 pm »

Delegates have 24 hours to object to the Truman's amendment.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,539
Italy



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2015, 10:43:28 am »

The amendment has been adopted.
Logged
Talleyrand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2015, 03:27:37 pm »

If the issue here is voter fatigue (which I definitely agree with), we should just stipulate several possible dates in the year to vote on all constitutional amendments so you don't have one each week. Perhaps they should coincide with whatever the next federal election is, special or regular.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,053
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2015, 03:30:31 pm »

If the issue here is voter fatigue (which I definitely agree with), we should just stipulate several possible dates in the year to vote on all constitutional amendments so you don't have one each week. Perhaps they should coincide with whatever the next federal election is, special or regular.
My hesitation would be that sometimes constitutional amendments fixes errors or loopholes in the constitution. Perhaps require it to receive unanimous approval to be voted on the following weekend, otherwise it is sent to the next federal election.

Good thought, Talleyrand!
Logged
Talleyrand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2015, 03:35:02 pm »

That's a good idea. If it's an urgent, unanimous fix it should be voted on immediately. Anything else can wait.

Another thing we need to definitely have is the SoFE administer the booth. Enough waiting on 5 different regional executives to open five different booths in five different booths or whatever. The arguments for that existing were beyond inane, and proven garbage time and time again.

Also, how about we clarify that the amendment must receive 60% support nationwide to pass? If we still mandate it to be based on the regions, you could have a situation where it fails by 1 vote with very low turnout in two regions, while passes heavily with extremely high turnout in another. Thus, something an overwhelming majority of voters support would fail to pass.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2015, 03:38:38 pm »

That's a good idea. If it's an urgent, unanimous fix it should be voted on immediately. Anything else can wait.

Another thing we need to definitely have is the SoFE administer the booth. Enough waiting on 5 different regional executives to open five different booths in five different booths or whatever. The arguments for that existing were beyond inane, and proven garbage time and time again.

Also, how about we clarify that the amendment must receive 60% support nationwide to pass? If we still mandate it to be based on the regions, you could have a situation where it fails by 1 vote with very low turnout in two regions, while passes heavily with extremely high turnout in another. Thus, something an overwhelming majority of voters support would fail to pass.

This is an excellent idea. The current amendment process is poorly constructed and ought to be replaced.
Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,053
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2015, 03:44:08 pm »

I would agree that it should be administered by the SoFE - I don't see how that tramples on regional rights. Though I expect things to be better now (two-three active regions), it is still a safer bet to simply leave it in the hands of the SoFE.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2015, 04:09:04 pm »

     60% support nationwide is rather low, but I would accept it as a compromise if it is balanced with more stringent requirements on the Senate proposing an amendment.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2015, 04:11:23 pm »

     60% support nationwide is rather low, but I would accept it as a compromise if it is balanced with more stringent requirements on the Senate proposing an amendment.

67%, perhaps? That would correspond to the current requirement of 2/3 of the Regions.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2015, 04:14:35 pm »

     60% support nationwide is rather low, but I would accept it as a compromise if it is balanced with more stringent requirements on the Senate proposing an amendment.

67%, perhaps? That would correspond to the current requirement of 2/3 of the Regions.

     I think 67% is alright. When the vote came up on that requirement, someone (think it was Marokai?) made the argument that it was about as tough as the standing ratification requirement.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,091
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2015, 02:25:33 am »

67% nationwide and 80% of the Senate would be fine with me (with 100% leading to an immediate ratification vote, otherwise it would occur with the elections as Tmth suggested).
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,158
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2015, 10:52:22 am »

If we're going to have a constitution like the one we do now, which covers almost every issue under the sun in oppressive detail (which, disappointingly, seems to be the track we're on) then we need to have, if anything, a lower threshold to pass. It was borderline impossible for us to change anything before due to a combination of gubernatorial inaction, vested interests, uninterested zombies and unthinking conservatism and if we repeat the same thing again, you can mark my words that the game will be gone within a year.

Either we have a minimalist US style constitution and then we can talk about a higher threshhold or we have a constitution like it is now with better grammar and a lower threshhold. Anything else would be disastrous.

I do agree with set aside days and SOFE implemention, and frankly the consistent,crazy, opposition to the latter was always one of the most depressing aspects of the old atlasia.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,091
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2015, 12:19:54 pm »

I prefer we don't include everything under the sun, this time around. A lot more should be left to the regions than was before.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2015, 01:50:39 pm »

     History has indicated that the threshold for amending the Constitution needs to be high to mitigate the high levels of extremism in Atlasia. Being vague is perfectly fine.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,158
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2015, 03:16:59 pm »

     History has indicated that the threshold for amending the Constitution needs to be high to mitigate the high levels of extremism in Atlasia. Being vague is perfectly fine.

Well the fact that no reform measures, whether consolidation, districts, bicameralism, giving control over amendments to the SOFE and so on and so on and so on, despite them all having more than majority support and in most cases supermajority support among active players, passed suggests that it already is a really high threshold and in fact, too high.

Again though, this would be far more bearable if it weren't for the fact that to change anything in the game of any importance requires changing the constitution.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2015, 03:27:00 pm »

     History has indicated that the threshold for amending the Constitution needs to be high to mitigate the high levels of extremism in Atlasia. Being vague is perfectly fine.

Well the fact that no reform measures, whether consolidation, districts, bicameralism, giving control over amendments to the SOFE and so on and so on and so on, despite them all having more than majority support and in most cases supermajority support among active players, passed suggests that it already is a really high threshold and in fact, too high.

Again though, this would be far more bearable if it weren't for the fact that to change anything in the game of any importance requires changing the constitution.


     I was being a little facetious there, but my view of the Constitution has long been that it should exist as a sort of "last line of defense against tyranny". In that case high barriers to change make sense, and have worked alright with the United States IRL.

     The difference is that, as you point out, the United States has a very nonspecific Constitution whereas Atlasia's goes into painful detail on many different subjects. I think moving towards the former model and reserving many of the things that were detailed in the Second and Third Constitutions for statute would be a wise move that would find broad ideological support.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 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