Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 05, 2019, 09:37:21 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Misc Articles (Amendment, Supremacy, Officeholding, &c) LAST CALL for new topics
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Misc Articles (Amendment, Supremacy, Officeholding, &c) LAST CALL for new topics  (Read 6011 times)
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 12, 2016, 11:29:33 pm »
« edited: April 27, 2016, 03:18:14 pm by Senator Truman »


Hear ye! Hear ye! Having seen the adoption of a Bill of Rights, this Convention will now turn its attention to such additional and miscellaneous provisions as should be fitting and proper for inclusion in the federal Constitution. Through discussion with the Deputy Presiding Officer and other delegates to the Convention, I have compiled the following list of the questions that remain to be settled before we proceed with a final vote on this document:

                     Process for amending the Constitution
                     Federal "Supremacy Clause"
                     Relations between the Regions
                     Rules for simultaneous officeholding
                     Legislative process, relationship between the Senate and the House

Sometime tomorrow, I will present an amendment addressing most of these topics that will form the basis for our discussion; in the meantime, feel free to offer any ideas, thoughts, or concerns you may have in regards to these Articles.

I now open the floor for debate.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2016, 01:01:05 am »

I prefer a clean two-thirds all the way through for amendments.


2/3rs of the Senate (4), 2/3rds of the House (6) and 2/3rds with the Regions (2) with a 2/3rds Popular vote override on the later.
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 #2 on: April 13, 2016, 01:05:09 am »

I prefer a clean two-thirds all the way through for amendments.

2/3rs of the Senate (4), 2/3rds of the House (6) and 2/3rds with the Regions (2) with a 2/3rds Popular vote override on the later.

I agree with this. Simple, effective, and it gives a say to everyone.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,947


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2016, 10:49:18 am »

I agree that in most matters a 2/3 vote is acceptable.

However, we should institute a 3/4 vote on secession.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2016, 05:30:15 pm »

However, we should institute a 3/4 vote on secession.
This has already been done.

Anyways, I offer the following amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment; HOWEVER, because it will be much easier to adopt this and then make changes as necessary than it would be to scrap this proposal and start from scratch, I respectfully ask that delegates refrain from objecting to this amendment. Think of this as a foundation rather than a final product: the idea is to erect a basic framework, after which we can consider changes or additions as necessary.
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 #5 on: April 13, 2016, 06:01:10 pm »
« Edited: April 13, 2016, 06:53:19 pm by Governor Leinad »

Alright, we'll let this "foundation" pass and then we can hold a principle vote on how we ratify amendments.

Also, if anyone thinks we missed anything, I think now would be the time to speak up about it.
Logged
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,378
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2016, 08:15:56 pm »

Shouldn't it be "a majority/three-fifths of voters in two thirds of the regions"?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2016, 09:02:50 pm »

Shouldn't it be "a majority/three-fifths of voters in two thirds of the regions"?

He is trying to replace the regional ratification process with a natonal popular referendum.

It has been a big push for years, and has usually been pushed for either just before or just after an attempt to curb regional powers came to the forefront. Therefore it usualy draws immense ire from regionalists.

This constitution establishes their powers, and protect's their rights. We have fought so hard to get devolution and other things into this constitution. Removing the regions from this process denies them a say in any future changes to those provisions, including their removal or even abolition of the regions. Such attempts have occured every two years or so since I joined in 2008. 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2016, 09:11:18 pm »

Shouldn't it be "a majority/three-fifths of voters in two thirds of the regions"?
Such is the status quo; however, I believe that amendments to the national Constitution should be ratified by the national electorate. Under the current system, it is not inconceivable that a widely popular amendment could fail because of an uneven distribution of the population. For example:

Region A:   50 Yes, 10 No
Region B:   19 Yes, 21 No
Region C:   18 Yes, 22 No

Under the "Ratification by Region" System, this hypothetical amendment would have failed despite over 60% of voters having supported it at the polls. That strikes me as enormously undemocratic. Under my proposal, the right to amend the Constitution would lay with the body it was created to represent: the national people.

Of course, others will disagree with me, so a vote will be in order once this amendment is adopted; however, I strongly believe that my proposal is the correct one, and I urge my fellow delegates - when the time comes - to vote to sustain it.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2016, 09:24:31 pm »

This constitution establishes their powers, and protect's their rights. We have fought so hard to get devolution and other things into this constitution. Removing the regions from this process denies them a say in any future changes to those provisions, including their removal or even abolition of the regions. Such attempts have occured every two years or so since I joined in 2008. 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015.
I see your point, and I don't discount the danger of eroding Regional authority too greatly (hence my steady support for devolution at this Convention). At the same time, however, I'm wary of denying the national electorate a voice in shaping the national Constitution. The only circumstance in which a vote of the Regions would turn out differently than a vote of the nation as a whole is when the Regions are out of step with public opinion. In that sense, the "Ratification by Region" system is a bit like the RL electoral college: it's perfectly rational and democratic... until it isn't.

I'm cautiously intrigued by your earlier proposal. To clarify: your idea was that the national electorate could overturn the result of the Regional referendum(s) by a 2/3 vote, yes?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2016, 10:07:26 pm »
« Edited: April 13, 2016, 10:12:10 pm by Eternal Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Shouldn't it be "a majority/three-fifths of voters in two thirds of the regions"?
Such is the status quo; however, I believe that amendments to the national Constitution should be ratified by the national electorate. Under the current system, it is not inconceivable that a widely popular amendment could fail because of an uneven distribution of the population. For example:

Region A:   50 Yes, 10 No
Region B:   19 Yes, 21 No
Region C:   18 Yes, 22 No

Under the "Ratification by Region" System, this hypothetical amendment would have failed despite over 60% of voters having supported it at the polls. That strikes me as enormously undemocratic. Under my proposal, the right to amend the Constitution would lay with the body it was created to represent: the national people.

Of course, others will disagree with me, so a vote will be in order once this amendment is adopted; however, I strongly believe that my proposal is the correct one, and I urge my fellow delegates - when the time comes - to vote to sustain it.

On the flip side, couldn't that entail that a change is being made that is especially harmful to agriculture for instance and thus harmful to the West and South but is loved by the less agricultural North? Also your example implies a lower turnout in both the other regions but not in the supportive one. Indicating the supportive one has an overwhelming vested interest in it, that those other two don't share.

THe purpose of this process is to ensure that such changes don't come at the detriment of a particular region or another. Especially now that there is a secession mechanism, because if the other two are always outvoted, it runs the risk of the country breaking apart.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2016, 12:20:16 am »

On the flip side, couldn't that entail that a change is being made that is especially harmful to agriculture for instance and thus harmful to the West and South but is loved by the less agricultural North? Also your example implies a lower turnout in both the other regions but not in the supportive one. Indicating the supportive one has an overwhelming vested interest in it, that those other two don't share.
Actually, my model assumed unanimous turnout in every Region: the difference is one of population, with Region A having roughly 20 more citizens than B and C. As for your main point:

1. While the existence of competing Regional Interests (to use your example, the agrarian West versus the industrial North) are real and significant in the world outside Atlas, within Atlasia they have almost no effect on the game. The Regions - if I may break character for a moment - are imaginary constructs of an internet community. People do not stand to loose their homes or jobs if, for example, a particular farm subsidy is reduced, and so those kinds of issues rarely drive how people vote in elections and referendums. In real life, someone living in Wyoming is much more likely to support a pro-agriculture program than someone living in, say, New York City; in Atlasia, however, whether one is registered in the Northeast or the Midwest makes almost no difference as to what policies one supports (quite often, the poster in question does not even live in that state IRL). In short, the idea that policy differences are based on Regional divisions doesn't match up with how the game operates: ideology, not geography, is the deciding factor in most Amendment votes, and therefore it will be quite rare to find someone who supports or opposes an Amendment because of where they are registered.

2. Forgive me, but you seem to be confusing Rights with Interests - that is, you are arguing that a hypothetical Amendment could conceivably turn out better for some parts of the country than others, and that this alone is reason enough to block the National Ratification system. I must respectfully disagree. There are really two reasons that a Region might object to a proposed amendment: either because it infringes upon their Rights, or because it infringes upon their sectional Interests. The former is obviously deplorable and must be avoided; the latter is sometimes unfortunate, but can be appropriate. Consider an amendment that truly violates the Rights of the people of the Regions: say, the right to vote. An attempt to eliminate this right would affect all people equally: in the absence of the cultural or economic differences debunked in (1), support or opposition to this measure is likely to have little to do with Regional boundaries. There is no reason that someone in the Northeast would be more or less inclined to support the proposal than someone in the South, except for arbitrary registration patterns that have little to do with any inherent quality of the Regions themselves. In short, any attempt to infringe upon the rights of the Regions would be debated on the same premises and preconceptions in every Region; geography, in effect, is moot.

Now consider an equally hypothetical amendment that is contrary to one particular Region's Interests. (As I explained in (1), these kinds of considerations rarely play a role in Atlasia, but for the sake of the argument let us set that aside for a moment.) Interests are not like Rights: there is nothing universal or unchangeable about them, nor is one Interest inherently more important or 'correct' than the other. There are millions of examples of conflicts of interest in our politics: trade policy pits the interests of consumers against the interests of producers; mass transit projects benefit urban communities more than rural ones; green energy subsidies are good for solar panel producers but not oil companies. While most of us are likely to find one of these interests more compelling than the other, none is inherently superior or more important to the others. When possible, it is best to balance these interests (after all, government exists to serve the whole people, and not just a fraction), but sometimes we are forced to make a choice. By tradition, Atlasia bases its choices in these cases on the principle of majority rule: that is, whichever policy benefits the greatest number of people is adopted.

When the interests of one Region are pitted against the interests of another (such as in your example of agricultural policy), the will of the majority of citizens must prevail. As such, when a proposed Amendment is supported by a majority of the populace, it is only right that said Amendment should be adopted. The only exception to this rule is when the proposal violates the Rights of the minority- a state of affairs that, as I have just demonstrated, effects all citizens equally regardless of Regional boundaries.


I realize that I've been talking for a while here, so to summarize:

   1. Sectional rivalries (i.e. rural vs. urban, farm vs. industry) don't really play a role in Atlasia. This is because the Regions are (like Atlasia itself) imaginary and many people aren't RL residents of their Region, so ideology - not geography or the local economy - forms the basis for what policies people support or oppose.
   2. Rights are universal - when a Right is taken away, it affects everyone equally. Thus, support or opposition to an Amendment that legitimately violates the rights of the people does not depend on one's Region of residence.
   3. One Region's Interests are not inherently superior to another Region's Interests; in other words, the North is not more important that the South or West (and vice versa). Therefore, when two interests come into conflict, the will of the majority must prevail. Therefore, a system that obstructs the principle of majority rule is illogical and unproductive.

Especially now that there is a secession mechanism, because if the other two are always outvoted, it runs the risk of the country breaking apart.
This is why I voted against secession: what you're describing is a scenario where the Regions are blackmailing the Union into adopting minority rule. In any case, I don't think that this is at all likely: remember that there is a very high threshold for secession votes. As such, in the scenario I described, Regions B and C could not secede unless a sizable portion of "Yes" voters supported doing so.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2016, 01:03:24 am »

The Regions - if I may break character for a moment - are imaginary constructs of an internet community. People do not stand to loose their homes or jobs if, for example, a particular farm subsidy is reduced, and so those kinds of issues rarely drive how people vote in elections and referendums. In real life, someone living in Wyoming is much more likely to support a pro-agriculture program than someone living in, say, New York City; in Atlasia, however, whether one is registered in the Northeast or the Midwest makes almost no difference as to what policies one supports (quite often, the poster in question does not even live in that state IRL).

Truman, this is precisely the argument you do not want to be making. Your first sentence, alone, was the basis for every attempt at reducing Regional power for the last eight years. Be it removing the regional Senate seats and replacing it with an at-large Senate, replacing the ratification process with a referendum or abolishing the region's outright.

I mentioned an issue from real life that has similar characteristics with what I am talking about but it is not quite the same. For instance such policies are legislative matters naturally, and yes majority rules on those things. However, when discussing a change like abolishing the Regional Senate or repealing the devolution provisions, you are talking about a removal of rights. And Historically, the various regions have had distinct views on this matter. The South was always regionalist, the Midwest was always the most hostile to regions. The other regions shifted at times but the Pacific generally sided with the Midwest and the Mideast with the South. Conservatives in the South were almost always more regionalist, those out west voted with the anti-regionalists or took reformists stance (political necessity). So yes, location most certainly did matter.

This was the same motivation that drove the real life founders to make it so difficult to remove the compromises like the Senate (requires all states to approve a change) and to amend the constitution generally. Because those institutions that balanced state majorities with the national majority were deemed vital to keeping the union together. Now we have an approved secession process in this document. Both of us opposed it, but it is there. Whether or not we voted against it matters not because it is there now and thus we have to operate on that basis. The antidote to secession is constitution solidy back in small-f federalist principles. Divisions of power, checks and balances, and an amendment process that shields those structures from the whims of a temporary, tyrannical majority.   

It is fine to let the majority rule on matters of legislation, but the strength of the constitution comes precisely from it denying the dictatorship of the majority when it comes to gov't structure and the bill of rights, from curbing popular excesses on those matters. Without a regional say in amendment ratification and a high enough threshold, this convention will open the door to the next generation of radicals and their inevitable anti-regionalist push (There has been one every two years: 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015).

The 2009 push was prefaced by an attempt to reduce the ratification threshold. The others followed or were followed by pushes for a national referendum.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2016, 01:23:50 am »

Quote from the drafter of our present Constitution in response to an amendment replacing regional ratification with a 3/5ths referendum in 2009:

I strongly oppose this proposal. Atlasia is greater than the sum of its parts, meaning it is not simply about the total number of people. The game is run at both an at-large and a regional level, as reflected in the Senate and the current wording of Article VII, Section 1. In addition, a successful democratic system is not about protecting the voice of the majority, but rather, it should be focused on preventing the abuse of minority rights.

This amendment would betray both of those goals and allow the more populous regions to impose their will on the smaller ones, simply by virtue of their "majority" status. It is for that reason I believe this is detrimental "reform."
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 #14 on: April 14, 2016, 02:29:46 am »

Alright, my fellow Delegates, I have a crazy idea...so crazy it just might work...

What Senator Truman wants is to make it more proportional to the national vote. What Senator Yankee wants is to retain the ability for regions to have a say in the matter.

I think we can do both.

Before I detail how, I'd like us to take another look at Truman's example:

Region A:   50 Yes, 10 No
Region B:   19 Yes, 21 No
Region C:   18 Yes, 22 No

Should regions B and C have the right to keep the amendment from passing? Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with Yankee in this regard. But in this example, it's basically a tie in those regions, correct? So it's hard to say that that region, as a whole, opposes that amendment as anything close to a consensus, since over 40% of the region actually supports it.

We can retain the ability for the people of (a) certain region(s) to reject an amendment and still have an approach centered on the national popular vote. Without further ado:

The Leinad Amendment Ratification Plan:

1. If an amendment has three-fifths of the vote overall, it will pass...

2. ...unless three-fifths of the voters in multiple regions oppose the amendment...

3. ...or four-fifths of a single region oppose the amendment.

Great, right?

In practice, most votes that achieve #1 (get 60% of the national vote) won't be stopped by #2 (less than 40% of the vote in two regions) or #3 (less than 20% of the vote in one region), but it will still avoid any form of plot to damage regional sovereignty.

I think this plan is a "compromise"--if you can call it that, I mean, both sides get what they want!--that anyone can get behind, and I see no reason why any person in their right mind would oppose it. (Opposition in three...two...one...Tongue)
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2016, 06:50:09 pm »

The Regions - if I may break character for a moment - are imaginary constructs of an internet community. People do not stand to loose their homes or jobs if, for example, a particular farm subsidy is reduced, and so those kinds of issues rarely drive how people vote in elections and referendums. In real life, someone living in Wyoming is much more likely to support a pro-agriculture program than someone living in, say, New York City; in Atlasia, however, whether one is registered in the Northeast or the Midwest makes almost no difference as to what policies one supports (quite often, the poster in question does not even live in that state IRL).
Truman, this is precisely the argument you do not want to be making. Your first sentence, alone, was the basis for every attempt at reducing Regional power for the last eight years. Be it removing the regional Senate seats and replacing it with an at-large Senate, replacing the ratification process with a referendum or abolishing the region's outright.
Pardon me, I chose my words poorly. The point I was making was not, "The Regions are imaginary, so their Rights don't matter," but rather "The Regions aren't organic communities bonded by geography and a common upbringing, so sectional tensions are less prevalent in Atlasia." Obviously, the latter ought have no bearing on discussions of Regional Rights, which is the main question here. I agree that we need to protect the Regions against assaults on their liberty, but it's also important for the national electorate to have a vote too (lest the Regions themselves become the abusers).

The Leinad Amendment Ratification Plan:

1. If an amendment has three-fifths of the vote overall, it will pass...

2. ...unless three-fifths of the voters in multiple regions oppose the amendment...

3. ...or four-fifths of a single region oppose the amendment.
This just might work. A suggestion to make it simpler: a three-fifths vote in a national referendum will ratify a proposed amendment, but 2 of the 3 Regional legislatures can veto it. That would increase the importance of the Regional governments and Regional elections (one of the goals of devolution), preserve the historical role of the Regions in the ratification process, and give the national electorate a voice in the matter.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2016, 06:50:48 pm »

Anyways, seeing no objection, the Amendment has been adopted.
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 #17 on: April 15, 2016, 12:53:32 am »

The Leinad Amendment Ratification Plan:

1. If an amendment has three-fifths of the vote overall, it will pass...

2. ...unless three-fifths of the voters in multiple regions oppose the amendment...

3. ...or four-fifths of a single region oppose the amendment.
This just might work. A suggestion to make it simpler: a three-fifths vote in a national referendum will ratify a proposed amendment, but 2 of the 3 Regional legislatures can veto it. That would increase the importance of the Regional governments and Regional elections (one of the goals of devolution), preserve the historical role of the Regions in the ratification process, and give the national electorate a voice in the matter.

I suppose you have a point by making regional elections more important, but I don't think it's much simpler than my original plan, and it also doesn't take the will of the people into consideration as much as mine.

I'd love to hear what the other delegates think about all this stuff. I still like my plan best, although I'd probably accept Truman's alteration on my plan. The point is to retain both the role of the regions and the will of the national electorate--two objectively good things that we don't have to be forced to pick from.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2016, 01:30:59 am »

The Regions - if I may break character for a moment - are imaginary constructs of an internet community. People do not stand to loose their homes or jobs if, for example, a particular farm subsidy is reduced, and so those kinds of issues rarely drive how people vote in elections and referendums. In real life, someone living in Wyoming is much more likely to support a pro-agriculture program than someone living in, say, New York City; in Atlasia, however, whether one is registered in the Northeast or the Midwest makes almost no difference as to what policies one supports (quite often, the poster in question does not even live in that state IRL).
Truman, this is precisely the argument you do not want to be making. Your first sentence, alone, was the basis for every attempt at reducing Regional power for the last eight years. Be it removing the regional Senate seats and replacing it with an at-large Senate, replacing the ratification process with a referendum or abolishing the region's outright.
Pardon me, I chose my words poorly. The point I was making was not, "The Regions are imaginary, so their Rights don't matter," but rather "The Regions aren't organic communities bonded by geography and a common upbringing, so sectional tensions are less prevalent in Atlasia." Obviously, the latter ought have no bearing on discussions of Regional Rights, which is the main question here. I agree that we need to protect the Regions against assaults on their liberty, but it's also important for the national electorate to have a vote too (lest the Regions themselves become the abusers).

I disagree, the embedded character of the regions and such creates a similar pehenomenon as a common upbringing or as close to an equivalent of such this game can have and such is a great thing because it allows us to simulate such forces one would be inclined to think are impossible to as you suggest. Tongue 
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 #19 on: April 15, 2016, 01:37:44 am »

The Leinad Amendment Ratification Plan:

1. If an amendment has three-fifths of the vote overall, it will pass...

2. ...unless three-fifths of the voters in multiple regions oppose the amendment...

3. ...or four-fifths of a single region oppose the amendment.
This just might work. A suggestion to make it simpler: a three-fifths vote in a national referendum will ratify a proposed amendment, but 2 of the 3 Regional legislatures can veto it. That would increase the importance of the Regional governments and Regional elections (one of the goals of devolution), preserve the historical role of the Regions in the ratification process, and give the national electorate a voice in the matter.

A nifty compromise would be to let the regions decide how to "veto" it, would it not? So, either my plan or yours.

And I also like the idea of a region being able to veto something by themselves if 4/5ths oppose, although I doubt that would happen too often in practice.
Logged
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,378
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2016, 07:39:25 am »

Why not three-fifths nationwide or three-fifths of the voters in a majority of regions?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,275


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2016, 06:53:07 pm »

The Leinad Amendment Ratification Plan:

1. If an amendment has three-fifths of the vote overall, it will pass...

2. ...unless three-fifths of the voters in multiple regions oppose the amendment...

3. ...or four-fifths of a single region oppose the amendment.
This just might work. A suggestion to make it simpler: a three-fifths vote in a national referendum will ratify a proposed amendment, but 2 of the 3 Regional legislatures can veto it. That would increase the importance of the Regional governments and Regional elections (one of the goals of devolution), preserve the historical role of the Regions in the ratification process, and give the national electorate a voice in the matter.

A nifty compromise would be to let the regions decide how to "veto" it, would it not? So, either my plan or yours.
That would definitely be in keeping with the general policy of this Convention to give the Regions as much autonomy as is practicable. Personally, I can't think of any reason not to do it that way - it would give the Regions more leeway (and therefore more things to argue about) and make phrasing the Article much easier to boot.

I'm not a fan of the unilateral veto power, though: conceivably, you could have a scenario where 4/5 of Region X opposes an amendment but the other two Regions support it by similar margins. Allowing Region X to veto the amendment over the objections of the other two would undermine both the Regions and the popular will.
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: April 16, 2016, 01:39:48 pm »

The Leinad Amendment Ratification Plan:

1. If an amendment has three-fifths of the vote overall, it will pass...

2. ...unless three-fifths of the voters in multiple regions oppose the amendment...

3. ...or four-fifths of a single region oppose the amendment.
This just might work. A suggestion to make it simpler: a three-fifths vote in a national referendum will ratify a proposed amendment, but 2 of the 3 Regional legislatures can veto it. That would increase the importance of the Regional governments and Regional elections (one of the goals of devolution), preserve the historical role of the Regions in the ratification process, and give the national electorate a voice in the matter.

A nifty compromise would be to let the regions decide how to "veto" it, would it not? So, either my plan or yours.
That would definitely be in keeping with the general policy of this Convention to give the Regions as much autonomy as is practicable. Personally, I can't think of any reason not to do it that way - it would give the Regions more leeway (and therefore more things to argue about) and make phrasing the Article much easier to boot.

I'm not a fan of the unilateral veto power, though: conceivably, you could have a scenario where 4/5 of Region X opposes an amendment but the other two Regions support it by similar margins. Allowing Region X to veto the amendment over the objections of the other two would undermine both the Regions and the popular will.

     What if we denied regions the ability to veto if the overall popular vote were above a certain threshold (say, 2/3rds)?
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 #23 on: April 17, 2016, 11:46:30 pm »
« Edited: April 17, 2016, 11:49:24 pm by Governor Leinad »

Why not three-fifths nationwide or three-fifths of the voters in a majority of regions?

No, that wouldn't work. It basically combines the worst of both worlds from Truman's plan (the region's can't really stop it) and the status quo (the people as a whole could reject it but it still goes through).

I'm not a fan of the unilateral veto power, though: conceivably, you could have a scenario where 4/5 of Region X opposes an amendment but the other two Regions support it by similar margins. Allowing Region X to veto the amendment over the objections of the other two would undermine both the Regions and the popular will.

But when would that ever happen?

If 3/5ths of the overall population supports something, I highly doubt 80% in one region would oppose it. Unless it was something that would hurt that one region.

But again, it would be rare. I mean, you were the one who said regions aren't all that different, right, so why would they vote that drastically different unless it's something unfair to one of them? Tongue

Also, as I believe Yankee mentioned earlier, the secession risk is a real factor. If 80% of one region opposes something, this reduces the chances they leave over it.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2016, 01:19:57 am »

I'm really unsure why - at least for once in this convention - we need to be pandering to the Regions when it comes to this topic. This entire convention has been nothing but one set of concessions after another to the Regions. The Regions are going to be astronomically more powerful in the new game than in this one, with the only real concession made thus far being that we've sloughed off the dead weight in terms of there being too many of them (i.e.: the original problem and why we're here).

Can anyone explain to me a practical reason why the nominal will of the game at-large shouldn't determine whether or not an amendment passes nationally? Please refrain from saying that a bunch of Star Wars fans hunkering down in one corner of the country counts as "culture"/justification here.

This is being made far too complicated for the sake of fanning the cooches of the Regions. Also, the variable means for ratification should probably be jettisoned as well; this has historically been used only as a way to cause mischief, obstruct or subvert the will of the people (I should know: I've always encouraged its retention for those very reasons).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 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