Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 24, 2020, 01:04:52 pm
News: 2020 Mock/Endorsements for Presidential Primaries are now open.

  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 (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Misc Articles (Amendment, Supremacy, Officeholding, &c) LAST CALL for new topics  (Read 6092 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« 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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #1 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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #2 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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #3 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: 44,360
United States


« Reply #4 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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #5 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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2016, 10:55:08 pm »

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).

Because all your anti-regionalist rimjob friends turned on the game, pushed for its dissolution and have since departed from our midst. The people who have always blocked pro-regionalist reforms are gone, the same ones who always supported anti-regionalist reforms. So now regions get to determine not just their Senators, but how they are elected. As I stated in a PM even I am a little shocked at just how regionalist this constitution became in some areas.

Regions were never the problem. Their number relative to the number of participants was.

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.


Because popular sovereignty is a dangerous threat to minority rights. Allowing a temporary majoritarian tyranny free reign over the Bill of Rights and all the checks and balances, is a road to dictatorship. I am not interested in seeing you become a caudillo, as much as those radicals on AAD seem to get off on the thought. Tongue

And what about Midwest loonyism, which existed for like 10 damn years. Labor had no problem feeding off of the leftist culture there. This is a game, Adam. Everything is fake, jumping out of game to label something as fake to achieve an in game end seems rather hollow in my opinion. It was ridiculous when bgwah did it, and it is likewise 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).

It doesn't have to be complex to be pro-regionalist, it is this is instance on majoritarian tyranny. Majority rules on a water bill, fine. Majority rules on freedom of speech, no thank you. It should be a tough and difficult threshold.  

That is not why MaroDuke passed the 17th Amendment and it was not for that purpose that I voted for it in the Senate. Though it is true that it was criminally abused just a few months later with your complicit involvement. Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2016, 10:57:43 pm »


PRINCIPLE VOTE on CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Please rank the following Plans in order of preference.

[  4 ] PLAN A: The Constitution may be amended by a 3/5 vote of the national electorate.

[  3 ] PLAN B: The Constitution may be amended by a 3/5 vote of the national electorate, BUT amendments may be Vetoed by a 2/3 vote of the Regions.

[  2 ] PLAN C: The Constitution may be amended by a 3/5 vote of the national electorate, BUT amendments may be Vetoed by 3/5 of the voters in two (2) Regions or 4/5 of the voters in one (1) Region.

[  1 ] PLAN D: The Constitution may be amended by a 2/3 vote of the Regions.

[   ] Abstain


[/quote]
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2016, 12:33:13 am »

If I keep seeing Calhoun references, I might feel motivated to quote Burke word for word.


Word for word! Tongue Just remember, you guys started so it isn't my fault.

goes to dig out Reflections on the French Revolution...
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2016, 12:05:38 am »

RESULTS of the PRINCIPLE VOTE on CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

First Count
Plan A   6
Plan B   3
Plan C   1
Plan D   8

Second Count
Plan A   6
Plan B   4
Plan D   8

Third Count
Plan A   8
Plan D   10

By a majority of two votes, PLAN D has been ADOPTED.


In retrospect, it's probably for the best that Plan D won out. This way we have a process for amending the Constitution that is time-tested and absolved of the controversy that would have dogged the other three plans.

Alright, moving along! I'll propose an amendment to incorporate the results of this vote shortly; after that, we'll proceed to the legislative process and then (hopefully) a final vote.

Glorious news!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mirPnfe6dAE
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2016, 09:13:56 am »

And I thought I had it bad. Tongue


I actually made a post about a cap on the number of times a bill should be considered, but the post got lost in that 3 AM site freezing crap it appears.

I would say the originating chamber gets 1 vote on whether or not to accept the bill as amended, if Aye, it goes to the President. If no, the VP then sends it back to the other chamber with instructions for an up or down vote on the bill as it originally passed in the originating chamber. If yes, it goes to the President, if nay, it dies. You could even have the VP administer these votes themselves to save time.

With competent VPs, Senate PPTs (Yes I know that technically Senate's leader is undefined Tongue), and House Speakers that process should take no more then a day or two at the most.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2016, 04:57:46 am »

Senate Passes Bill => House Amends Bills => Senate voteds on Amended Bill

Senate passes amended bill => Sent to President
Senate rejects amendment bill => House Votes on Senate bill minus House Amendment

House Passes Original Senate Version => PResident for Signature
House Rejects Original Senate Versions => Bill Dies
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2016, 12:57:23 am »

Why don't we juse insert a clause directing the use of STV until the new gov't can pass its own legislation on the matter. We know it best, and last I knew, it worked better with 9 seats then five anyway. Lower quotas and much more competitive.


We can always change it if it doesn't work when we pass a permenent system with a representation act of some kind.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2016, 02:13:21 am »

You better not do anything crazy until the Legislature is fully assembled. Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #14 on: May 03, 2016, 11:29:02 pm »

It seems like an appropriate way to handle the GM powers etc. The exact details and such are left for legislation, including the name of the official.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,360
United States


« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2016, 11:50:54 am »

Well looks like I am not going to get to vote on this as a delegate.


I will still be commenting, regardless. This needs to be ratified.
Logged
Pages: [1] 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