Maybe I'm a bit rusty here, but:
What exactly is the purpose of creating a single government while leaving two regions in existence?
Is "we don't know what to do with an extra Senate seat" the main argument for such an approach?
Isn't the consent process identical whether this proposal is adopted or the regions are merged (the consent of the Senate is required for any change in regional boundaries; the consent of the Regions being changed is required)?
Furthermore (with the exception of the Senate seat), what tangible difference is there between two regions with one government and one region with one government?
I'm supportive of the overall goal here, but am not exactly pleased with this seemingly bubble-gum patchwork solution as-is. More than 60% of Atlasians supported three regions (let alone four) when I left, and I'm only assuming that the Right was able to steer the message away from that and dilute sentiment in the mean time. Still, both regions in question approved the Fix the Regions amendment, so it's pretty obvious where these constituents fall on the broader issue - the Senate should oblige them. The regions certainly haven't become healthier in the interim, as best I can tell.
The reason is quite simple, AG. This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Changing the Senate structure would. It makes no sense to allow the Mideast, IDS, and Northeast, beyond their duly elected representative(s) to the Senate, have much of a say in the maintenance of the two other regions.
Doesn't Article IV Section 2 allow for a clean merger without a constitutional amendment, or was that one of the purposes of the Fix the Regions Amendment?
Another article (too lazy to look it up) specifies that there be 5 Senators elected from the Regions in the Class A Senate elections. You
are technically correct, but this would cause a constitutional crisis if I'm interpreting it correctly.
