Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Constitutional Convention => Topic started by: Senator Cris on October 08, 2015, 10:36:41 am



Title: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 08, 2015, 10:36:41 am
This is what the Constitution said about our regions.

Quote
Article IV

Section 1: Regional Government
1. The Regions may elect a Governor as chief executive officer, and may establish other executive posts as they wish, but no executive member may be elected for a term of more than six months.
2. Regions may establish elected legislatures for themselves to make proper laws and electoral procedures.
3. Regions may establish judiciaries for themselves; However, if they choose not to, the federal Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all election disputes, but only insofar as Regional Law may provide. Any Region may vest all or part of its judicial power in the Supreme Court of Atlasia.
4. Regions are autonomous of the federal government and may govern themselves and their elections as they wish, except where otherwise provided for in this Constitution.

Section 2: Regional Boundaries
1. The existing Regions of Atlasia are adopted unaltered by this Constitution.
2. The consent of the Senate is required for any change in Region boundaries.
3. The consent of the Regions being changed is required.
4. A State by plebiscite shall be able to veto its transfer from one Region to another.
5. The Senate may by law admit new States to the Republic of Atlasia. The Senate may apportion this State to a Region via proper legislation.

Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
1. Regional authorities shall be bound by the the federal Constitution and federal laws, even in cases when they conflict with Regional laws, as federal law shall be the highest form of law in Atlasia.
2. The powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions, are reserved to the Regions respectively, or to the people.


Title: Re: Number of Regions
Post by: Senator Cris on October 08, 2015, 10:38:51 am
I think we should insert in the Constitution the number of new regions and what states are included in a region. Also we should work about Section 1.


Title: Re: Number of Regions
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 08, 2015, 10:41:29 am
proposed amendment:

Quote
Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
[…]
3. The federal government may not interfere with a region's right to secede from Atlasia.


Title: Re: Number of Regions
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 08, 2015, 10:42:55 am
Quote
Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
[…]
3. The federal government may not interfere with a region's right to secede from Atlasia.
Seconded.


Title: Re: Number of Regions
Post by: Senator Cris on October 08, 2015, 11:16:48 am
To all delegates: please specify if it's an amendment or just a suggestion.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 08, 2015, 11:40:46 am
Three, I think, would be the absolute most we can sustain.

And for the record, I am fully against the last "secession" proposal. To enact something like that would be to invite the dissolution of Atlasia within five minutes, not to mention seccession itself is beyond pointless in the context of this game.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 08, 2015, 12:06:24 pm
Three, I think, would be the absolute most we can sustain.

And for the record, I am fully against the last "secession" proposal. To enact something like that would be to invite the dissolution of Atlasia within five minutes, not to mention seccession itself is beyond pointless in the context of this game.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 08, 2015, 12:09:48 pm
There are obviously a number of changes that ought to be made to our current Regional system; however, our first step must be to strike out the existing text entirely. A piecemeal repair job, consisting of changing a few lines of text and crossing out an odd phrase here and there, will do little to remedy the malaise afflicting our current Republic.

As such, I offer the following amendment to the current text:

Quote
Article [TBD]

[Placeholder Text]


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Oakvale on October 08, 2015, 12:14:41 pm
I would support 2 regions as outlined in Bore's plan of a couple of months ago.

I fully support Cylde's proposal - it's absurd that people would attempt to suppress democracy and, more importantly, activity by outlawing something that would inevitably make the game more entertaining and create a whole new range of issues.

I move we adopt Truman's proposal by acclamation to save time on a vote.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: rpryor03 on October 08, 2015, 12:15:38 pm
I second oakvale's motion.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 08, 2015, 12:22:14 pm
I'd like to remember: when you present an amendment, please specify that it's an amendment. The same for when you'll object to amendments. Please specify that it's an objection.

These are the rules:

Quote
Section 3: Every delegate can propose amendments to the original text of the Constitution.
a. Delegates have 24 hours to object to the amendment.
b. If there aren't objections, the amendment is adopted. If there are objection, a 48-hour vote is open by the Presiding Officer.
c. To pass, an amendment requires a simple majority.

Delegates have 24 hours to object to Evergreen's amendment:

proposed amendment:

Quote
Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
[…]
3. The federal government may not interfere with a region's right to secede from Atlasia.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: rpryor03 on October 08, 2015, 01:09:32 pm
I object to Evergreen's amendment. This is an important matter, and it needs to be discussed.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 08, 2015, 01:52:40 pm
I also object.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 08, 2015, 02:01:32 pm
I'll let the debate going on today.
Tomorrow, I'll open a 48-hours vote.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: bore on October 08, 2015, 02:23:01 pm
I'm in favour of two regions.

We need to ask ourselves why we want regions? I think the answer is a combination of multiple things, to be a place where newcomers can get started easily, to be a place with a different political culture to the large senate and to have something which the federal government can interact with. None of these things require the regions to really interact with each other and it's telling that they almost never do.

One of the main points we can all agree on is there are too many offices in atlasia so we shouldn't have 3 regions, because regions take up an enormous amount of offices unless we have to, and given the purposes of regions, we don't have to.


Title: Re: Number of Regions
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 08, 2015, 03:38:29 pm
proposed amendment:

Quote
Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
[…]
3. The federal government may not interfere with a region's right to secede from Atlasia.

I object to evergreen's proposed amendment.

This amendment sets a dangerous precedent.  All regions are part of one nation, and therefore the federal government, which represents the entire nation, should have input into such an important and far reaching action as secession. 

Seceding from the nation should not be a simple procedure.  There should be more input in this matter than, for example, a referendum in the region that passes by one vote, or whatever.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 08, 2015, 03:51:42 pm
I believe there should be three regions in Atlasia.

We definitely have to get away from having five regions.  Even four regions would be too many.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 08, 2015, 03:57:37 pm
Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
This is an Admendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clark Kent on October 08, 2015, 04:01:57 pm
Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6. Regions, states or groups cannot secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
This is an Admendment.
I second this. Secession should be constitutionally banned. The Union Forever.

Anyways, I also support reducing Atlasia down to three regions.


Title: Re: Number of Regions
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 08, 2015, 04:03:08 pm
proposed amendment:

Quote
Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
[…]
3. The federal government may not interfere with a region's right to secede from Atlasia.

I object to evergreen's proposed amendment.

This amendment sets a dangerous precedent.  All regions are part of one nation, and therefore the federal government, which represents the entire nation, should have input into such an important and far reaching action as secession. 

Seceding from the nation should not be a simple procedure.  There should be more input in this matter than, for example, a referendum in the region that passes by one vote, or whatever.
The United Nations charter supports self-determination, should the voters of an area want that. It would be undemocratic to deny the rights of a region to become independent.


Title: Re: Number of Regions
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 08, 2015, 04:05:53 pm
proposed amendment:

Quote
Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
[…]
3. The federal government may not interfere with a region's right to secede from Atlasia.

I object to evergreen's proposed amendment.

This amendment sets a dangerous precedent.  All regions are part of one nation, and therefore the federal government, which represents the entire nation, should have input into such an important and far reaching action as secession. 

Seceding from the nation should not be a simple procedure.  There should be more input in this matter than, for example, a referendum in the region that passes by one vote, or whatever.
The United Nations charter supports self-determination, should the voters of an area want that. It would be undemocratic to deny the rights of a region to become independent.
Hate to tell you but Atlasia isn't governed by the UN charter it's governed by our constitution.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 08, 2015, 04:25:48 pm
To quote Jefferson, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes," and in that vein I cannot support Evergreen's amendment. Giving the Regions the right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union, without placing a single restriction on how this might be done, completely upends the balance of power in a federal system. Not only does this proposal make for a very unstable Republic (the E.U., the Holy Roman Empire, and the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation all come to mind), it would effectively castrate the national legislature, allowing a majority of one Region to block legislation with the threat of separation.

On top of that, it is unclear to me why any Region would need a right to secede. With all due respect to the NNP, talk of the "cultural heritage" of the Regions is absurd: these are imaginary divisions created by posters on an online forum, a fair number of whom don't even live in their Atlasian Region IRL. Unlike the 13 Colonies or French Indochina, no Region has been deprived of the right to representation in the government, nor has any been forced to join Atlasia against their will. Maybe, if the president decides to declare himself dictator or the army leads a coup, there might hypothetically be a need for separation, but those instances are hardly commonplace enough to necessitate Constitutional protections (and in any case, a would-be dictator isn't likely to respect the Constitution).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 08, 2015, 04:39:55 pm
Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6. Regions, states or groups cannot secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
This is an Admendment.

I support this amendment, perhaps re-worded

6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 08, 2015, 04:41:10 pm
Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6. Regions, states or groups cannot secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
This is an Admendment.

I support this amendment, perhaps re-worded

6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
I'll reword it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: NeverAgain on October 08, 2015, 04:46:35 pm
3 Regions sounds good to me. I also say we make a constitutional amendment banning attempts to secede.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 08, 2015, 05:04:12 pm
Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
This is an Admendment.
I will, obviously, object to this.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 08, 2015, 05:59:59 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 08, 2015, 06:40:13 pm
proposed amendment:

Quote
Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government
[…]
3. The federal government may not interfere with a region's right to secede from Atlasia.

can i withdraw this and reďntroduce it later, so truman's amendment can go first?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: NeverAgain on October 08, 2015, 07:00:39 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.
I agree partially. The Atlasian democracy has been and is based on fair representation, and with that goes the opportunity to free speech and talking to your representative. Secession is an extreme and frankly,  disastrous idea for Atlasia, and even the Northeast. I do agree that we should not ban the concept completely or ban the threat there of, but there is a limit. The people of Atlasia don't need government bureaucrats attempting to fight against its own government, just to have laws that they want enacted faster. If we allow secession, we are allowing any and all groups who feel they "do not belong" in Atlasia to just skip right out. With this in mind I am proposing a counter amendment to CC's.

Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6. A State, Region, and/or a group, have the right to argue and propose secessionist movements. These movements, to qualify for this law, must have passed by their local assembly and have been passed by a referendum. If they succeed in this, the Atlasian Senate will vote on the movement. A simple Majority will be needed, and will go to the President. If the President vetoes this, it will go back to the Senate for a 4/5 majority vote.

I know this was badly worded, I will fix it if anyone supports this.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 08, 2015, 07:08:17 pm
I can only support this Admendment if you get rid of the national referendum and then change the wording to 'local assembly and have been passed by a referendum.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 08, 2015, 07:09:26 pm
But I still believe that the regions signed on to be part of this Union and with that they don't have the right to secede. Much, like the Confederacy and the Northeast is the Confederacy at this time.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: NeverAgain on October 08, 2015, 07:20:55 pm
I can only support this Admendment if you get rid of the national referendum and then change the wording to 'local assembly and have been passed by a referendum.
Changed.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 08, 2015, 07:28:03 pm
But I still believe that the regions signed on to be part of this Union and with that they don't have the right to secede. Much, like the Confederacy and the Northeast is the Confederacy at this time.

tsss

the vast, vast majority of present-day northeasterners were not around at the founding of atlasia. and even if they had been, everything is entirely different now than it was then.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 08, 2015, 07:30:46 pm
But I still believe that the regions signed on to be part of this Union and with that they don't have the right to secede. Much, like the Confederacy and the Northeast is the Confederacy at this time.

tsss

the vast, vast majority of present-day northeasterners were not around at the founding of atlasia. and even if they had been, everything is entirely different now than it was then.
I understand that sentiment but regions should only secede if the government is infringing on their citizens basic fined mental rights. Please tell me how the Atlasian government has infringed on your rights?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: NeverAgain on October 08, 2015, 07:33:58 pm
But I still believe that the regions signed on to be part of this Union and with that they don't have the right to secede. Much, like the Confederacy and the Northeast is the Confederacy at this time.

tsss

the vast, vast majority of present-day northeasterners were not around at the founding of atlasia. and even if they had been, everything is entirely different now than it was then.
Yes. It is. Does that mean the Northeast should secede though? Also, how do you feel on my amendment? As you and CC are the most outspoken on the issue, albeit from different sides, if you guys agree on this, (with modifications) the hope for this convention will grow stronger.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 08, 2015, 07:40:27 pm
I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:

()

Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: NeverAgain on October 08, 2015, 07:45:48 pm
I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:

()

Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?
Looks good. I would consider Kansas being part of the south, Minnesota + Iowa being part of the West, and Maryland, Delaware, + (possibly) Missouri part of the Northeast. Just a few ideas.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 08, 2015, 07:46:48 pm
I personally believe that the Midwest should go with the Mideast and the Pacific with the South. Why would you put two failing regions together you would get a giant barely thriving region. It doesn't make sense to put two failing regions together and then expect them to thrive, if you put a failing region together and a thriving one you will get a even more thriving region. Also, we should all start talking about devolution, but we've been to busy with the independence and seccesion debate.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: NeverAgain on October 08, 2015, 07:55:09 pm
()
Give or take MN or IA.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 08, 2015, 07:57:32 pm
The CARCA map is fine with me.

Look, population changes are going to happen anyway and half the population is going to be purged from the rolls if they fail to vote in October (I know, I'm exaggerating, but I want to drive the point that current population numbers offer no guarantee moving forward), so we really should stop thinking of the old regions as they were, otherwise the whole consolidation process might end up in the ludicrous mentality of "But I want my region to the one to survive, screw the rest!".


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 08, 2015, 07:58:03 pm
I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:

()

Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?

the blue region would have probably 85-90% of activity. this is a silly map.

Also, how do you feel on my amendment? As you and CC are the most outspoken on the issue, albeit from different sides, if you guys agree on this, (with modifications) the hope for this convention will grow stronger.
at least it establishes a clear procedure?
but nah i'm not a big fan of the senate (especially, but not only, the current senate) being the arbiters of independence.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 08, 2015, 08:07:42 pm
I personally believe that the Midwest should go with the Mideast and the Pacific with the South. Why would you put two failing regions together you would get a giant barely thriving region. It doesn't make sense to put two failing regions together and then expect them to thrive, if you put a failing region together and a thriving one you will get a even more thriving region.

Personally, I'm wary of tying our new Regional map too closely to today's demographics. A merged South-Pacific, for example, would consist of ~23 states, including PR, while the Northeast would still have 10. At present, the vast majority of active citizens reside in and around New England and the Great Lakes, but who's to say it will be like that a year from now? It would be unfortunate to have to call another ConCon in two years because we bet on demographics remaining the same forever.

Griffin made a good point during the CARCA meetings that I think bears repeating: it's highly unlikely that active citizens are going to stay squeezed together in one region when there are opportunities to win office and effect legislation elsewhere. If each region only has 5 or 6 offices, ambitious citizens aren't all going to crowd into the Northeast when they could take advantage of a vacancy in, say, the South. The reason this isn't happening now is that there are so few active citizens compared to the number of offices; if we simultaneously reduce the number of positions and Regions, however, we should see the population balance out.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: NeverAgain on October 08, 2015, 08:12:10 pm
Also, how do you feel on my amendment? As you and CC are the most outspoken on the issue, albeit from different sides, if you guys agree on this, (with modifications) the hope for this convention will grow stronger.
at least it establishes a clear procedure?
but nah i'm not a big fan of the senate (especially, but not only, the current senate) being the arbiters of independence.
You would support a referendum then?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 08, 2015, 08:17:46 pm
I would caution my fellow delegates against becoming fixated on a single aspect of the Regional system so early in the Convention. I don't discount the important of answering the secession question, but it's hardly the only issue before us.

Judging from the conversation in this thread, this seems to be where we stand at the moment:
- A majority support 3-Region consolidation
- An even split between those who favor a right to secede, those who oppose it, and those who want to make sure the process is carefully regulated
- No word on devolving more powers to the Regional governments

It makes the most sense to settle the issues we agree on first: therefore, I suggest that our next move (after my amendment to strike the current text has been adopted/rejected) be to settle on a map. For reference, here is the map adopted by the CARCA a few weeks ago, submitted by Griffin:

()

Assuming we go with a three-region system, how does everyone feel about this proposal?

the blue region would have probably 85-90% of activity. this is a silly map.

Maps have been a contentious area of the debate for years. I would caution the delegates from becoming too fixated on a detail that has little impact in reality. Yes, a majority of individuals live in the blue region. However, I would assume (as has been proposed in the past) that all citizens will have the opportunity to have one free move, should a reduction in regions occur. This should hopefully counter concerns of one region becoming too overpopulated, though unless we put initial caps on the regions, may be uncontrollable.

Something to think about.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 08, 2015, 09:58:50 pm
I like the map from the standpoint of having three regions that make sense geographically.

The populations in the regions can be adapted to.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 08, 2015, 10:03:53 pm
The number of regions I prefer is obviously a matter of public record, and quite frankly, the original reason why we're even having this ConCon in the first place!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 09, 2015, 12:21:40 am
Evergreen retired his amendment.
Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment:

Quote
Article [TBD]

[Placeholder Text]
[/quote]


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 09, 2015, 01:57:47 am
I will not support anything less than three regions. If regions are to serve the purpose stated by the proponents of the two region proposal, there would not be enough offices to achieve that with such a proposal. In the South we have had two back to back elections for Governor, where the losing candidate has departed from the game. We need an appropriate balance and two regions just cuts too deep in this regard.

I think we have a solid proposal built a three region map and that is where we should be going.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Leinad on October 09, 2015, 02:45:33 am
I'm glad to see the debate has already been started up! Sorry to be a tad late to it. There's much to discuss, so I'll address several of the points together:



Three regions is best. What's the real difference between 2 regions and 3 regions, relative to now? They're both radical changes from what we currently have. If going from 5 to 3 regions isn't good enough, I don't think taking off another one will save us.



I think the CARCA map is a pretty good start, but I do have doubts regarding Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, and Nyman, DC. Specifically, I ask my fellow delegates, why would we move Minnesota and Iowa away from it's current region (most Midwestern states are in the new western region), to a region that, as Evergreen rightly points out, already has about twice as much activity as the other regions combined (at least as far as the Regional Governments Board)?

(Also, I feel weird putting DC, Maryland, and Delaware in the South. I suppose I'd allow it given the population disparities I mentioned above, but still, it feels as odd as putting North Carolina in the Northeast, or Michigan in the Pacific.)



Regarding secession, I think it's an important subject to discuss, but I agree we shouldn't beat the horse dead. For the record, I'm against the amendments of both the Pacific and Northeast Speakers, because I think they both go too far.

Let's back this up a bit, shall we? To the fundamental philosophical principles. What did you expect? We're building a constitution, not a sandwich. As you may know, it is my belief that government power is fundamentally derived from the rights of individual persons, and it is merely the government's job to safeguard those rights. Therefore, why can't they choose what government they want to safeguard those rights? Speaker Conservative pointed out a rather negative example of secession in 1861, but an example of secession in 1776 could also be brought up.

I'm not supporting or opposing Northeastern secession, or any specific secession (or, rather, that's not my purpose with this post), I'm just saying that I don't see the philosophical support for indiscriminately condemning every single one. The Federalists, my party, have always been a party of regional rights, so I'm surprised that the amendment comes from us. Explain to me what gives the federal government the right to keep regions from seceding under any and all circumstances and I'll change my tune, but until then I'll have to oppose that amendment.

Likewise, Speaker Evergreen's amendment also puts it in a one-size-fits-all manner. Maybe I would support it if it was more detailed--perhaps only of the secession attempt was supported by a federally-verified referendum that got 60% or something like that, but this could be via a 50%+1 vote, or even a legislative vote--heck, it would've made TNF's Communist Theme Park completely constitutional (unless of course someone opposed it, as they did, in which case it would've caused a Constitutional Crisis of ridiculous proportions due to the vagueness of the amendment).



In the South we have had two back to back elections for Governor, where the losing candidate has departed from the game.

That doesn't do it justice. We have had 3 straight region-wide single-winner elections where the loser has left: Flo > DeadPrez, PiT > Hagrid, and someone who's name I can't recall > DarTheBearNC. In fact, the last loser of a region-wide single-winner election in the South to not leave the game or go inactive immediately after is all the way back in February, a certain someone from North Carolina.

Not that it's that important of a distinction, mind you, it's just that it's a more impressive fact counting the Senate.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 09, 2015, 07:50:49 am
I'd like to ask you to not overlap your amendments.

After Truman's amendment, there are other amendments:

Classic Conservative's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4752519#msg4752519) and Never Again's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4752776#msg4752776).

If Truman's amendment will pass, all other amendments will be automatically changed in order to reflect that there isn't a current text, but it's TBD. But the content will be the same.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 09, 2015, 04:00:24 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.
I think it should be a turnout threshold among eligible voters. For example, the Northeast has a law stating that voters must have made ten posts in the previous 56 days for their vote to be eligible - those who have met that requirement would be included in the turnout figure, but not those who haven't met the threshold.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 09, 2015, 11:22:10 pm
Indiana shouldn't go with the Northeast section.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 10, 2015, 02:48:56 am
It is worth reiterating that the whole "I'd add/remove/swap [this state]" stuff is extremely counter-productive at this point and really shouldn't be a part of the dialog right now. This was the entire purpose of CARCA - which everyone in both cases was invited to participate in - so that we could derive a crowd-sourced aggregate map that best reflected the wishes of the people.

It is also worth noting that the same map was chosen in both instances of CARCA (2013 & 2015), with each convention having very little overlap with the other in terms of participants. It is a superior map in terms of balancing the desires and wishes of the nation.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 10, 2015, 02:57:10 am
Truman's amendment has been adopted.
This is the current version:

Quote
Article [TBD]

[Placeholder Text]
[/quote]

Now, let's go to Classic Conservative amendment.

Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.

I removed 2 and 6 only because there is not a text, so it might have other numbers in the future.
Delegates have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 10, 2015, 09:13:41 am
i object in the strongest possible way

the right to self-determination is recognised worldwide as a fundamental human right, and i can't support a constitution that utterly destroys it like this.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 10, 2015, 09:34:47 am
i object in the strongest possible way

the right to self-determination is recognised worldwide as a fundamental human right, and i can't support a constitution that utterly destroys it like this.
Agreed - it would be undemocratic to deny self-determination.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 10, 2015, 09:38:14 am
i object in the strongest possible way

the right to self-determination is recognised worldwide as a fundamental human right, and i can't support a constitution that utterly destroys it like this.
Agreed - it would be undemocratic to deny self-determination.
I see the KKK marching in playing Dixie and waving the Confederate flag here they are:
()
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k-s51B66Sl4


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 10, 2015, 09:52:20 am
we're not the ones splashing confederate flags everywhere :P


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 10, 2015, 10:05:28 am
we're not the ones splashing confederate flags everywhere :P
This would be a better song and flag for the Northeast
The Bonnie Blue Flag
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a-3WAhbulFs
Change Southern Rights to Northern Rights.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 10, 2015, 12:03:36 pm
A 48-hours vote on Classic Conservative's amendment is now open.

Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 10, 2015, 12:10:52 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 10, 2015, 12:11:26 pm
nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 10, 2015, 12:15:04 pm
Yea


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 10, 2015, 12:29:43 pm
YEA


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 10, 2015, 12:51:49 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 10, 2015, 02:53:45 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 10, 2015, 03:07:15 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.

I don't think 90% is a very fair threshold, but more important, I think any result that doesn't take into account a percentage of overall registered voters is a recipe for disaster. Low turnout elections strike all the time, so having a handful of people who vote determine the future of a region is a bad idea. I'd think something like 60% of all eligible voters voting in favor is fairer.

A 48-hours vote on Classic Conservative's amendment is now open.

Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.

Nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: bore on October 10, 2015, 03:17:20 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 10, 2015, 03:19:01 pm
Maps have been a contentious area of the debate for years. I would caution the delegates from becoming too fixated on a detail that has little impact in reality. Yes, a majority of individuals live in the blue region. However, I would assume (as has been proposed in the past) that all citizens will have the opportunity to have one free move, should a reduction in regions occur. This should hopefully counter concerns of one region becoming too overpopulated, though unless we put initial caps on the regions, may be uncontrollable.

Something to think about.

I pretty much agree with this. I'm sympathetic to the argument, but it's not very likely that everyone will just sit still and not change their registration at all. When we shake up the snowglobe, people will re-settle in new places. A bit of faith there, but I think it's the only way this issue can be resolved without a map that looks offensive.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 10, 2015, 03:22:24 pm
Nay to Classic Conservative's amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 10, 2015, 03:26:27 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 10, 2015, 03:33:53 pm
Maps have been a contentious area of the debate for years. I would caution the delegates from becoming too fixated on a detail that has little impact in reality. Yes, a majority of individuals live in the blue region. However, I would assume (as has been proposed in the past) that all citizens will have the opportunity to have one free move, should a reduction in regions occur. This should hopefully counter concerns of one region becoming too overpopulated, though unless we put initial caps on the regions, may be uncontrollable.

Something to think about.

I pretty much agree with this. I'm sympathetic to the argument, but it's not very likely that everyone will just sit still and not change their registration at all. When we shake up the snowglobe, people will re-settle in new places. A bit of faith there, but I think it's the only way this issue can be resolved without a map that looks offensive.

to some degree, sure, but i don't think you understand quite how huge the activity gap is right now. leinad's last count showed the northeast accounting for ALMOST EIGHTY PERCENT of activity on the regional governments board.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 11, 2015, 01:15:57 am
Nay.

No one has explained what gives the federal government the absolute power to rule over people, even if the specific people don't want it, in every situation no matter what.

Let this not be a vote on Northeastern independence, or a sophomoric partisan rivalry bleeding over. This is an amendment that completely eliminates the right to self-determination, and basically gives the federal government absolute, unchallengeable power over the regions.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: NeverAgain on October 11, 2015, 01:49:10 am
Abstain.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 11, 2015, 09:51:55 am
A 48-hours vote on Classic Conservative's amendment is now open.

Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.

NAY.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 11, 2015, 01:22:14 pm
Aye
What's the point in having a country if you're just letting regions leave whenever they get angry? Preserve the union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: rpryor03 on October 11, 2015, 02:01:58 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 11, 2015, 02:02:57 pm
AYE.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Oakvale on October 11, 2015, 02:05:25 pm
Nay on the fascist Classic Conservative amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 11, 2015, 02:36:01 pm
Nay on the fascist Classic Conservative amendment.
For the love of God I'm not a fascist, nor is anyone other Atlasia here, you might not like my views on some issue but disagreement doesn't make someone a fascist.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clark Kent on October 11, 2015, 04:04:39 pm
AYE


The Union FOREVER


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 11, 2015, 05:41:34 pm
In the South we have had two back to back elections for Governor, where the losing candidate has departed from the game.

That doesn't do it justice. We have had 3 straight region-wide single-winner elections where the loser has left: Flo > DeadPrez, PiT > Hagrid, and someone who's name I can't recall > DarTheBearNC. In fact, the last loser of a region-wide single-winner election in the South to not leave the game or go inactive immediately after is all the way back in February, a certain someone from North Carolina.

Never heard of him. :P

But yeah, for the loser of a race, they are out of office and for a newer person that deprives them of a chance ot make a name for themselves. We need to have enough offices to give them a chance to establish themselves, otherwise they will leave after their first or second defeat.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 11, 2015, 05:43:52 pm
Nay on the fascist Classic Conservative amendment.
For the love of God I'm not a fascist, nor is anyone other Atlasia here, you might not like my views on some issue but disagreement doesn't make someone a fascist.

Someone has to fill TNF's vacuum, of calling Federalists fascists. I guess they selected a rotating committee.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 12, 2015, 03:00:21 am
I have a lot of thoughts on this, and tend to lean AYE, but in short, I think we need to hash a bit more out on this particular matter before voting on a very fundamental element such as this.

Abstain


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 12, 2015, 04:25:38 am
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 12, 2015, 10:26:06 am
     Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2015, 10:35:31 am
It surprises how individuals who have claimed to advocate for regional rights for years are now voting AGAINST regional rights on one of the most important votes related to it we have seen.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 12, 2015, 10:41:49 am
It surprises how individuals who have claimed to advocate for regional rights for years are now voting AGAINST regional rights on one of the most important votes related to it we have seen.
Well, it's a bit different.
One count is regional rights (in this case the debate'd be more rights to regions vs. more rights to fed. govt) but another count is letting regions secede from Atlasia.

Duke explains it very well:

Aye
What's the point in having a country if you're just letting regions leave whenever they get angry? Preserve the union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 12, 2015, 10:51:45 am
I agree with Duke what's the point of having a country if everyone can just say I'm bored let's have blank region leave and form our own nation.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2015, 10:55:49 am
I agree with Duke what's the point of having a country if everyone can just say I'm bored let's have blank region leave and form our own nation.
If EVERYONE wants that, they should have the ability to do so - there should definitely be safeguards in place to ensure this can only happen if the vast majority choose to do so, but the REGIONS should have the RIGHT to do so.

I don't see this as a huge deal, because with three regions we are likely to have three pretty ideologically diverse regions, so the chances that enough people come together to secede are pretty low.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 12, 2015, 12:12:53 pm
AYE: 10
NAY: 9
ABSTAIN: 2

The amendment has been adopted.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 12, 2015, 12:29:35 pm
This is the current text:

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.

Now, let's go to NeverAgain's amendment:

Quote
Section 2: Regional Boundaries
[...]
6. A State, Region, and/or a group, have the right to argue and propose secessionist movements. These movements, to qualify for this law, must have passed by their local assembly and have been passed by a referendum. If they succeed in this, the Atlasian Senate will vote on the movement. A simple Majority will be needed, and will go to the President. If the President vetoes this, it will go back to the Senate for a 4/5 majority vote.

This was a counter amendment to Classic Conservative's one, so I'd suggest the sponsor, if he wants to keep it, to withdraw it and propose another amendment with the same content but with the current text strikethrough.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2015, 01:21:17 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Oakvale on October 12, 2015, 01:36:04 pm
I propose an amendment.

Quote
Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: NeverAgain on October 12, 2015, 01:38:27 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.
I had a national referendum in there. Would you agree with that?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 12, 2015, 01:46:05 pm
We can spend weeks arguing about this "right to secede" and whether it should exist based on real life precedents, but I have to ask, what is the point of seccession itself?

It certainly doesn't add a productive dynamic to the game, unless we call the increasingly ludicrous "lol, I'm rebelling against Nyman and creating my own country" stunts a useful part of the game. It doesn't make sense either in hypothetical terms to dismember the country and blow up the union, not to mention this "right to secede" is far from a usual norm across the world these days.

Why, then, are secession mechanisms (which seem awfully easy to overcome) something we need?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 12, 2015, 01:56:26 pm
I propose an amendment.

Quote
Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
I object.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 12, 2015, 01:58:32 pm
I also object to NeverAgains Admendment we already have an Admendment that passed, we don't need to keep debating this forever and ever.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Oakvale on October 12, 2015, 02:02:13 pm
We can spend weeks arguing about this "right to secede" and whether it should exist based on real life precedents, but I have to ask, what is the point of seccession itself?

It certainly doesn't add a productive dynamic to the game, unless we call the increasingly ludicrous "lol, I'm rebelling against Nyman and creating my own country" stunts a useful part of the game. It doesn't make sense either in hypothetical terms to dismember the country and blow up the union, not to mention this "right to secede" is far from a usual norm across the world these days.

Why, then, are secession mechanisms (which seem awfully easy to overcome) something we need?

Typical fascist claptrap. If enough people want to form a new country they should have the right do so. Atlasia started because people wanted to do exactly that. The kind of absurd legalism that implies it should be against "muh rules" (which is what the Constitution is) will kill this game stone dead as it lies in hospital on life support.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 12, 2015, 02:04:24 pm
What you don't get to grasp the idea of Oakvale, is that splitting up a nation will kill a nation. With all do respect you're smart enough to know this.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 12, 2015, 02:17:10 pm
OK, individuals should have the right to leave a country if they wish, sure, but I guess my argument is taking land with them. It's fine to leave a country out of protest, but taking your house and forming your own country using land of another is a bit much. People can have the right to leave but the federal government should have the right to enforce the union.

Otherwise, why have a federal government? Just make a confederation of states that all have their own autonomy and be done with it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Oakvale on October 12, 2015, 02:21:00 pm
What you don't get to grasp the idea of Oakvale, is that splitting up a nation will kill a nation. With all do respect you're smart enough to know this.

The nation's already dead. The signs of life that occasionally emerge when someone with a genuinely radical message like Talleyrand emerges doesn't change that. If anything, regional independence - and let's face it, this is a blatant slap in the fact to the Northeast Nationalists by the hacks running this Convention, and nothing more - would revitalise the game. But, you know, muh union.

OK, individuals should have the right to leave a country if they wish, sure, but I guess my argument is taking land with them. It's fine to leave a country out of protest, but taking your house and forming your own country using land of another is a bit much. People can have the right to leave but the federal government should have the right to enforce the union.

Otherwise, why have a federal government? Just make a confederation of states that all have their own autonomy and be done with it.

I'd be fine with that.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 12, 2015, 02:28:39 pm
I think it's the 100th or so that I hear independence from a region to be something that would "revitalise" the game, and I fail to see convincing evidence supporting that. If anything, it's the "muh secession" mentality that seems a bit out of touch considering there is little point for the union to be broken in a whim.

And so I ask again, why do we need seccession? What do we gain from it?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 12, 2015, 02:36:43 pm
Just make a confederation of states that all have their own autonomy and be done with it.
That isn't a terrible idea. Perhaps create it in a way where the federal governments role is simple: monitor the regions.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 12, 2015, 02:44:03 pm
I think it's the 100th or so that I hear independence from a region to be something that would "revitalise" the game, and I fail to see convincing evidence supporting that. If anything, it's the "muh secession" mentality that seems a bit out of touch considering there is little point for the union to be broken in a whim.

And so I ask again, why do we need seccession? What do we gain from it?

Yeah, the argument for secession is pretty poor all around. As Duke pointed out, the theoretical argument for secession is weak to begin with, and claims that secession would spark increased activity just doesn't match up with reality. Oakvale and others have been pushing for Northeast independence for months now, yet this has not led to a significant increase in activity (the Northeast is active, yes, but this has little to do with with the secession movement). It's much more likely that secession would actually cause the game to collapse, as independent Regions would have smaller pools of active voters than a united Republic.

Furthermore, if you believe that Atlasia is already dead, you frankly shouldn't be here.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 12, 2015, 03:06:29 pm
Again: don't overlap amendments and when you present  amendments don't forget to strikethrough the current text.

@NeverAgain: I should assume that with your amendment you want to strike the current text and enterely replace it with the content of your amendment, right?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 12, 2015, 03:12:32 pm
Well, under certain circumstances succession does spark activity. I did that when I first joined Atlasia in 2008. :P

But it's never a long term thing. Eventually the region returns or is forced to. If people want a confederation where regions basically govern themselves then that's fine, push for that. But combining the current system with free succession doesn't make sense to me. If the Feds have no teeth there's little point in having Feds at all if region X can just leave without any issue for not liking the federal abortion law or being against same sex marriage, etc.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Talleyrand on October 12, 2015, 03:25:37 pm
It doesn't matter if the "theoretical argument for secession" is poor all around. That doesn't give the federal government a totalitarian right to prevent the self-determination of peoples. If a region wants to secede and does so by a democratic vote, the federal government should respect that decision and have mechanisms in place to deal with that (such as an automatic constitutional convention).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 12, 2015, 03:54:04 pm
We cannot be constantly tearing down and rebuilding the union at the whim of 51% of one Region. This is a recipe for disaster, and would likely destroy both Atlasia and the recently-separated Regions. As Duke said, there's nothing to stop people from starting up a new nation outside of Atlasia (such as South America or the Papal Patch), but allowing them to compromise our territorial integrity is a very bad idea. No Region was forced to join Atlasia against its will, nor has any been deprived of the right to self-government - there is literally no reason they would need to separate from the Republic, except in desperate pursuit of a momentary activity buzz.

If you think that the Regions should be entirely self-governing, fine: reestablish the Articles of Confederation and abandon the federal system entirely. Otherwise, we need to recognize that the whole point of a federal union is its permanence, and any attempt to weaken this is will result in an unworkable government.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 12, 2015, 03:55:24 pm
Oakvale and others have been pushing for Northeast independence for months now, yet this has not led to a significant increase in activity (the Northeast is active, yes, but this has little to do with with the secession movement).

grossly inaccurate, as usual, mr senator.

you see, very nearly 3/4 of legislative activity in the northeast over the past month comes from pro-independence legislators. and 60% of it comes from clyde and myself, both of whom have made it clear that we will resign if the referendum fails.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clark Kent on October 12, 2015, 04:01:30 pm
Oakvale and others have been pushing for Northeast independence for months now, yet this has not led to a significant increase in activity (the Northeast is active, yes, but this has little to do with with the secession movement).

grossly inaccurate, as usual, mr senator.

you see, very nearly 3/4 of legislative activity in the northeast over the past month comes from pro-independence legislators. and 60% of it comes from clyde and myself, both of whom have made it clear that we will resign if the referendum fails.
Ms. Speaker, what are your sources for this? The only possible way for the Northeast Assembly to be 75% anti-Union is if I am the only pro-Union representative, and I am reasonably certain that that is not the case.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 12, 2015, 04:07:53 pm
Oakvale and others have been pushing for Northeast independence for months now, yet this has not led to a significant increase in activity (the Northeast is active, yes, but this has little to do with with the secession movement).

grossly inaccurate, as usual, mr senator.

you see, very nearly 3/4 of legislative activity in the northeast over the past month comes from pro-independence legislators. and 60% of it comes from clyde and myself, both of whom have made it clear that we will resign if the referendum fails.

The fact that the most active members of the Northeast Assembly support secession does not prove that secession leads to greater activity: it merely proves that most active lawmakers are secessionists. The foremost leaders of the independence movement - yourself, Clyde, Oakvale, DemPGH - were active citizens long before secession was proposed. If you want to prove that secession leads to increased activity, you need to demonstrate that the Independence referendum has brought new voters to Atlasia, and this is clearly not the case.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 12, 2015, 06:31:20 pm
I can see secession if you are living under a tyrannical central government, who is imposing their will on a region, and forcing you to live in fear, i.e. Russia/Ukraine.

But in a democracy with all the rights enjoyed by Atlasians, giving unquestioned authority to a group of malcontents to secede is ridiculous.

We have passed an amendment banning secession.

Time to move on.   



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 12, 2015, 06:35:00 pm
I can see secession if you are living under a tyrannical central government, who is imposing their will on a region, and forcing you to live in fear, i.e. Russia/Ukraine.

But in a democracy with all the rights enjoyed by Atlasians, giving unquestioned authority to a group of malcontents to secede is ridiculous.

We have passed an amendment banning secession.

Time to move on.   


Hear hear.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 12, 2015, 08:03:27 pm
Just make a confederation of states that all have their own autonomy and be done with it.
That isn't a terrible idea. Perhaps create it in a way where the federal governments role is simple: monitor the regions.

It's a pretty bad idea. The only different would be that rabble-rousers would just start seceding counties or whatever the next relevant geographic area is at the time. It's a sentiment and not something contingent upon any one particular type of government.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 12, 2015, 11:44:06 pm
My fellow conservatives may think I'm a little off my rocker for this but there is precedence for the right of secession. Atlasia itself was and is the greatest secession movement because the mother country from which we came (the United Kingdom) denied us representation in her parliament while demanding that we pay taxes. The Declaration of Independence is a secessionist document

Just take in this paragraph for example

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



Our very convention is assembled to alter our constitution to reform our nation and protect the liberties we all hold dear. While I agree with you that secession from a free and democratic nation to form another one is irrational, the right of self governance and autonomy is a right we all hold dear. Look at the brave people of Catalonia who want to break away from Spain. The region pays 20 percent of the total revenue that goes to Madrid while only receiving 14 back. Given Spain's history of dictatorships shouldn't Catalonia's bid for independence be given serious consideration. Given our recent unrest and failed coup by TNF, I think giving our 5 regions greater autonomy would be a good idea.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 13, 2015, 01:56:23 am
What's the point in having a country if you're just letting regions leave whenever they get angry?
But in a democracy with all the rights enjoyed by Atlasians, giving unquestioned authority to a group of malcontents to secede is ridiculous.  

Opposing the Classic Conservative amendment doesn't imply support of the Evergreen amendment: a laissez-faire approach to secession. They're both positions that I think miss the point in different directions by assuming that all secessions are fundamentally equal, and there's never a time where their default position is wrong (I'd love to hear what Classic and those who back his amendment have to say about America's independence, or what Evergreen and those who back her amendment have to say about the Confederacy).

I think some people voted aye on the amendment to abolish the right of self-determination in all cases because they thought it was only a choice between those two options. At least, that's what Duke and Winfield make it sound like.

what is the point of seccession itself?

It certainly doesn't add a productive dynamic to the game

As former Senator Kalwejt said, it could add a layer to the game in diplomacy.

Probably a majority of people, including myself, have supported some level of relations with South America. An independent region would make it a three-way. Er, of diplomatic relations. (By the way, I wish we had about 10 times as many people so we could make 7 Atlasias and re-create the board game Diplomacy. Can I get an amen?)

I'm not sure why no one has brought it up, and why so many are reducing all secessions to nothing more than bratty children pitching a fit, and thus bringing nothing as far as activity to the game (a false assertion even with the current example--no matter what you think about the Northeast independence movement, it's created several threads worth of interesting discussion).

I also object to NeverAgains Admendment we already have an Admendment that passed, we don't need to keep debating this forever and ever.
We have passed an amendment banning secession.

Time to move on.

10 people voted for it out of 25. It won by a single vote. It's as settled as Einstein's hair after a convertible ride.

To completely brush aside any additional arguments, or any compromise, or anything else whatsoever regarding this matter just because your prefered choice already passed (by the skin of it's teeth) is absurd and borderline undemocratic. I had to deal with this crap at the Provisional Parliament--it's annoying.



Also, I second JCL's defense of self-determination. It's demagogic to call something un-American/un-Atlasian, so I'll resist the urge, but this is a founding principle we're crushing like a baseball on mom's vase with barely a second thought.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 13, 2015, 02:17:39 am
I have been pushing for greater powers to be devolved to the regions for years and since we are likely to have a legislative restart, now i the time to do it. However, I find seperatism to be just a bridge too far.

And to respond to Tmth's earlier posts. That is a false equivalency. Supporting regional rights does not equal supporting secession, and I have consistently supported regional rights, whilst also opposing every effort at secession that has occured since I have been here.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 13, 2015, 02:22:43 am
I oppose NeverAgain's amendment as well, for the same reason that Tmth opposed it. BUT, I think it's the best idea so far.

Therefore, Mr. Presiding Officer, I'd like to propose this amendment (presumably to be voted on after NeverAgain's):

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede discuss secession from Atlasia or any of its territories. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fifths majority of the vote, independence will be granted by law.

I'd also be willing to add an emergency clause--perhaps that the federal government (however we decide to set that up) can overturn this with, say, a four-fifths majority of the senate. Or maybe a different safeguard--perhaps the governor has to approve it, or it can be overturned if one senator from each region agrees. And then I'd be willing to add a counter to that--if it passes the referendum by, say, a three-fourths vote, it will go through anyway.

Of course, these numbers are just placeholders. The point is that the right to self-determination isn't infringed, but it needs to be by more than a 50%+1 margin. It's all about checks and balances, people.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 13, 2015, 05:55:54 am
I object.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 13, 2015, 06:13:41 am
Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a turnout greater than 50% of all eligible voters.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 13, 2015, 06:24:27 am
I object, for the love of the gods, just how many amendments on seccession are we going to vote on?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 13, 2015, 07:51:56 am
Again: please not overlap your amendments!

I'd like to remember that there are a lot of amendments:
- NeverAgain's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4757398#msg4757398);
- Oakvale's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4757450#msg4757450);
- Leinad's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4758310#msg4758310);
- Clyde's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4758383#msg4758383).

Considered that NeverAgain has not responded to my questions, I'll go ahead with his amendment.
I URGE ALL OTHER DELEGATES TO WITHDRAW THEIR AMENDMENTS.

Now, let's go to NeverAgain's amendment. Various people objected. A 48-hours vote is now open.

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
? A State, Region, and/or a group, have the right to argue and propose secessionist movements. These movements, to qualify for this law, must have passed by their local assembly and have been passed by a referendum. If they succeed in this, the Atlasian Senate will vote on the movement. A simple Majority will be needed, and will go to the President. If the President vetoes this, it will go back to the Senate for a 4/5 majority vote.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 13, 2015, 08:11:47 am
We can't stop one month to debate about secession rights with an amendment, then a counter amendment, then another counter amendment that strikes what approved early and then another that strikes the previous amendment. It's not the right way to act.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 13, 2015, 09:55:46 am
Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
? A State, Region, and/or a group, have the right to argue and propose secessionist movements. These movements, to qualify for this law, must have passed by their local assembly and have been passed by a referendum. If they succeed in this, the Atlasian Senate will vote on the movement. A simple Majority will be needed, and will go to the President. If the President vetoes this, it will go back to the Senate for a 4/5 majority vote.
Abstain - I don't believe that the President or the Senate should be able to veto the results of a democratic vote; however I believe that secession should be possible - should the voters in a region vote for it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 13, 2015, 10:00:54 am
abstain

aye - certainly not a good amendment, but i'd rather have this than let ct's stay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 13, 2015, 10:14:24 am
Nay



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: rpryor03 on October 13, 2015, 10:22:17 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: bore on October 13, 2015, 10:41:24 am
This type of insanely over prescriptive detail is a large part of what's wrong with the constitution at the moment.

If we must have something about secession in the constitution (and I don't see why we should) it should be something along the lines of "No region may secede from this union except when the majority of it's citizens have expressed a clear and sustained desire to do so"


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 13, 2015, 11:05:04 am
NAY!

I commend Never Again for trying to stake out the middle ground, but as PiT said, trying to regulate secession is a useless endeavor. We either need to outlaw secession (as we have already done) or go to a confederation system and scrap federalism entirely.

And seriously, guys, do we really need five amendments outlining secession protocol? This is hardly the biggest issue facing us, yet for a week now the Convention has been paralyzed by what promises to be an endless debate. As Winfield said, it's time to move on. If we can't do that, I would recommend voting on the remaining secession amendments all at once (STV style) so that we can settle this issue once and for all.

I'd love to hear what Classic and those who back his amendment have to say about America's independence,
I would refer you to a line in the Declaration of Independence that supporters of the right secession seem to have forgotten about:

Quote
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments should not be changed for light or transient causes;

In 1776, the 13 American Colonies had been deprived of their right to self-government, forced to comply with laws passed without their consent, placed under the rule of an occupying army, and attacked by their own king's soldiers. Even then, their right to secede from the British Empire was not protected by law: they had to fight for it.

Essentially, this is my view of the secession question:

1. Separation is allowable when, and only when, the rights of the seceders (life, liberty, property, self-government) have been infringed on by the national government. Even then, the people in question should seek to remedy the situation within the existing structure of government (as did the citizens of the 13 Colonies) before seeking independence.
2. If the national government is deliberately violating Constitutional protections of the rights of the people, it will probably not be inclined to obey the part of the Constitution allowing secession.
3. Thus, the only time a Constitutional right to secession would be respected is when it is not needed, making this passage worthless.

In short, are there times when it is necessary to rebel against governmental authority? Yes. In those times, however, legal rights are virtually meaningless. The only government that will respect a Constitutional right to secession is an honest government, and if the government is honest, there is no need to secede.

I can hear the proponents of secession in the gallery now, crying out that banning secession violates their right to self-determination. This simply is not so. The Right to Self Determination, as expressed in the U.N. Charter, was devised to express support for oppressed peoples and nationalities trying to overthrow despotic regimes. There is a big difference between the people of Ireland separating from Britain, which had established control over them without their consent, and the people of the Northeast, who entered into this Union willingly, separating from Atlasia because they are bored.

I'd like to examine an argument often used by the proponents of secession: the idea of the Constitution as a contract between sovereign states (or Regions). If this is indeed so, then the Union is indeed inseparable, for one party cannot declare a contract void without the consent of the other parties. If I enter into a contract with Leinad, wherein I agree to help him govern the South and he agrees to help me represent my constituents in the Senate, I cannot decide to void that contract without his consent. Doing so would undermine the very premise of the agreement and would irreparable harm my reputation in the eyes of all who know me.

Governments draw strength and prestige from their perpetuity. If we insert a clause into our Constitution saying, in effect "The national government is in charge, until it isn't," who will believe that Atlasia is any longer one of the world's great powers? Who will believe that we have the internal unity and the outward strength to take a leading role in world affairs, or indeed to be believed at all? The proponents of secession say it will repair our international reputation, but I see no reason why the Beijing or the Kremlin would be inclined to respect us if we declare that the national government may be dissolved at any time by the whim of 51% of one-third (or fifth) of the country.

Lastly, from a more practical standpoint, cleaving this Union in half (particularly if one of the halves is the Northeast) will effectively kill Atlasia. We do not have the necessary interest at this time to sustain simultaneously two national governments. In the event of secession, one of the resulting countries will almost certainly collapse within a short time of the separation (would anyone argue that the nation could survive right now without the Northeast?), therefore killing the only potential lasting change independence would bring: diplomatic relations.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 13, 2015, 12:21:22 pm
Nay

Sorry man, :( I will detail my reasons for the vote when I get off work.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 13, 2015, 12:26:32 pm
Aye, only because it is a step in the right direction. Still not ideal, though.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 13, 2015, 12:31:25 pm
Nay.

I have stated reasons previously.

We have spent enough time on this issue.

As far as I'm concerned, this issue has already been settled, and secession has been banned in the new constitution.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 13, 2015, 12:34:29 pm
Abstain. Leinad's amendment is the middle ground. I don't oppose the amendment in question but the president/senate shouldn't have veto power on this subject.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 13, 2015, 12:52:43 pm
Hear hear on Truman's well put arguments against seccession.

And Nay on the amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 13, 2015, 01:54:47 pm
     I would entertain a middle-ground amendment, but not this one.

     Nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 13, 2015, 01:56:33 pm
I oppose NeverAgain's amendment as well, for the same reason that Tmth opposed it. BUT, I think it's the best idea so far.

Therefore, Mr. Presiding Officer, I'd like to propose this amendment (presumably to be voted on after NeverAgain's):

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede discuss secession from Atlasia or any of its territories. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fifths majority of the vote, independence will be granted by law.

I'd also be willing to add an emergency clause--perhaps that the federal government (however we decide to set that up) can overturn this with, say, a four-fifths majority of the senate. Or maybe a different safeguard--perhaps the governor has to approve it, or it can be overturned if one senator from each region agrees. And then I'd be willing to add a counter to that--if it passes the referendum by, say, a three-fourths vote, it will go through anyway.

Of course, these numbers are just placeholders. The point is that the right to self-determination isn't infringed, but it needs to be by more than a 50%+1 margin. It's all about checks and balances, people.
Just to clarify on this amendment, would this be a national vote or a regional vote?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 13, 2015, 02:16:27 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 13, 2015, 09:03:02 pm
Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.
? A State, Region, and/or a group, have the right to argue and propose secessionist movements. These movements, to qualify for this law, must have passed by their local assembly and have been passed by a referendum. If they succeed in this, the Atlasian Senate will vote on the movement. A simple Majority will be needed, and will go to the President. If the President vetoes this, it will go back to the Senate for a 4/5 majority vote.
Aye, a step in the right direction.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 13, 2015, 09:34:34 pm
Abstain, for the same reasons that JCL articulated.

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede discuss secession from Atlasia or any of its territories. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fifths majority of the vote, independence will be granted by law.
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
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments should not be changed for light or transient causes;

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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 13, 2015, 09:41:38 pm
Honestly, I'm going to come out and say that I don't think three-fifths of the vote in a region is enough to grant independence. I think the option should be there, but three-fifths is far too low for such an important issue. I would say 2/3s at least, maybe even 3/4s.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 13, 2015, 09:54:31 pm
Abstain, for the same reasons that JCL articulated.

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
[...]
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede discuss secession from Atlasia or any of its territories. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fifths majority of the vote, independence will be granted by law.
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
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments should not be changed for light or transient causes;

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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clark Kent on October 13, 2015, 10:19:42 pm
Nay

I completely oppose any and all attempts to make secession any easier.


As for JCL's concern, Atlasian/American independence was not really secession, as the Thirteen Colonies were just that, colonies, and not actually an integral part of Britain itself. It's a different situation where different rules apply. In general, I am always opposed to secession.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 13, 2015, 11:28:01 pm
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.

I'd be surprised if a majority of the people opposing a right to secession are doing so based solely on the Northeast question - I know I'm not. As I'm sure you know from reading my earlier post, secession will upend the balance of power between the national government and the Regions and more than likely lead to the demise of Atlasia itself. Sooner or later, the national legislature is going to pass a law that a majority of citizens in one Region do not like: if that majority can declare itself out of the Union on a dime, we have a situation where the national government will be paralyzed by threats of separation. Furthermore, separation once accomplished will almost certainly kill at least one if not both of the emergent countries. Is there anyone who thinks we have enough active players in the game right now to sustain two independent powers?

Consider the political situation of our predecessor, the United States, in the 1850s. Virtually nothing was accomplished during that decade in regards to the slavery question (except for poorly-concieved "compromises" that made the situation worse) because, every time an anti-slavery Congressman would propose a solution, the pro-slavery faction would threaten to secede. We've seen this again and again over the course of human history: every political union that allows member states to secede has seen its national authorities rendered powerless. If you want to return to the Articles of Confederation, fine: legalize secession and vest all powers in the hands of the Regions. But if you want a federal system - and I suspect the majority of delegates do - you have to understand that secession just doesn't work.

You bring up a very important point though, Leinad, and that is that government derives its authority from the people. You are correct in saying that most Atlasians active today were not present at the formation of this Republic; all, however, have given their consent to the Union of these Regions by living here and abiding by the laws of our nation. To say that the Union does not bind us because we did not personally cast the vote to form it is to argue that laws against murder, slavery, arson, and treason do not bind us because our ancestors, and not we, penned the words that outlaw those practices.

Furthermore, I think you missed the central point of my earlier post. This Republic, and the union that came before it, is founded on the belief that all citizens, regardless of the conditions of their birth, has the right to live under a just, democratic government. When governments are unjust - when they violate the rights of the people, destabilize democratic institutions, and vest power in the hands of the few - then the people have the right to tear down that government and build a new one. What the fathers of our brand of democracy did not believe is that the people should have the right to overthrow just governments. Why? Because to rebel against the authority of a democratic government is a serious proposition, especially when it is the minority who rebel that does so. In doing so, the challengers are refusing to abide by the democratic determination of the people to abide by certain laws or follow certain leaders. If a Region can secede because it does not like the outcome of an election, what is the point of having elections? If a Region can secede because it does not like a particular law, what is the point of having laws? In both cases, a minority of the citizenry is refusing to abide by the democratic determination of the people. Not only does this destroy the idea of a federal union, it threatens the central tenant of our Republic: that we will submit our views to the democratic process.

Are there times when it may be necessary to oppose the government, even by force, even when a majority of citizens supports it? Yes. But those times are limited to when the government is actually infringing on the rights of the people, and in such cases it is unlikely that the ruling authorities will respect a Constitutional right to secession. In short, the only time in which such a right would mean anything at all is when secession is not permissible under the laws of Nature.

[TL;DR: Our democracy can survive only as long as the people agree to abide by the result of the democratic process. As such, citizens must respect the supremacy of the federal government, so long as that government does not take away their rights. If the government violates the rights of the people, then secession is permissible; however, in such an event, it is unlikely that said government would respect a Constitutional right to secession. As long as the government is just and continues to respect our natural liberties, there is no need for secession: in fact, seceding actually threatens the democratic process by giving the minority the right to nullify the will of the majority.]


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 14, 2015, 12:06:09 am
Nay

I completely oppose any and all attempts to make secession any easier.


As for JCL's concern, Atlasian/American independence was not really secession, as the Thirteen Colonies were just that, colonies, and not actually an integral part of Britain itself. It's a different situation where different rules apply. In general, I am always opposed to secession.

That's not how the British parliament thought. Even though they denied the colonists the right of being represented in their own body. Thus was a cause for revolution.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 14, 2015, 04:25:13 am
I'd be surprised if a majority of the people opposing a right to secession are doing so based solely on the Northeast question - I know I'm not.

Hmmm...from reading you (who multiple times in your prior post brought up the Northeast seemingly as the main example of secession), Duke (who generalized secession as "letting regions leave whenever they get angry"), Winfield (who generalized ideas in favor of secession in at least some cases as "giving unquestioned authority to a group of malcontents"), and others--it seems like many are either talking about the secession in the context of the Northeast, or other very similar cases with little perceived justification.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the two most prominent examples I hear from the anti-secession-in-apparently-every-case-imaginable side are the Northeast and the Confederacy, which is obviously cherry-picking unpopular examples to make the point look better.

Quote
As I'm sure you know from reading my earlier post, secession will upend the balance of power between the national government and the Regions and more than likely lead to the demise of Atlasia itself. Sooner or later, the national legislature is going to pass a law that a majority of citizens in one Region do not like: if that majority can declare itself out of the Union on a dime, we have a situation where the national government will be paralyzed by threats of separation. Furthermore, separation once accomplished will almost certainly kill at least one if not both of the emergent countries. Is there anyone who thinks we have enough active players in the game right now to sustain two independent powers?

No, probably not, but I'm not sure it's as sensational as you put it. There's always a chance that the new dynamic would boost activity enough to allow both nations to be sustainable--not to mention, in case of failing, the probably good chance of the union merging again for mutual survival.

In general, I agree it would be more likely to hurt than help (although I see the arguments on both sides). But I'm not sure if that warrants the position of giving the federal government absolute, unchallengeable control over the regions, as the amendment that just narrowly passed explicitly does.

Quote
Consider the political situation of our predecessor, the United States, in the 1850s. Virtually nothing was accomplished during that decade in regards to the slavery question (except for poorly-concieved "compromises" that made the situation worse) because, every time an anti-slavery Congressman would propose a solution, the pro-slavery faction would threaten to secede. We've seen this again and again over the course of human history: every political union that allows member states to secede has seen its national authorities rendered powerless. If you want to return to the Articles of Confederation, fine: legalize secession and vest all powers in the hands of the Regions. But if you want a federal system - and I suspect the majority of delegates do - you have to understand that secession just doesn't work.

Which is why we should have a high threshold and make it a tricky process--so that it's never done on a whim if it ever is done. Again you invoke slavery to make your position look better, but the point is more general than that: if the federal government does something bad enough to provoke at least 60% or 67% of the people in an area to want to leave, maybe those people have a point?

Again, opposing the Classic Conservative amendment does not equal supporting Evergreen's withdrawn amendment. I'm against allowing a 50%+1 majority, I'd much rather make it a steeper hurdle to jump than that, where it isn't done just because people are "bored" or whatever.

Quote
You bring up a very important point though, Leinad, and that is that government derives its authority from the people. You are correct in saying that most Atlasians active today were not present at the formation of this Republic; all, however, have given their consent to the Union of these Regions by living here and abiding by the laws of our nation. To say that the Union does not bind us because we did not personally cast the vote to form it is to argue that laws against murder, slavery, arson, and treason do not bind us because our ancestors, and not we, penned the words that outlaw those practices.

There's a difference: things such as violence/theft/fraud/destruction of property/etc. are direct, objective tramplings of other people's rights. They violate the Non-Aggression Principle, if you'll allow such blatant libertarianism. These are more obvious laws that protect our unalienable rights, while the laws placing the federal government in charge of people do no such thing.

Despite the fact I think your comparison is erroneous, I completely get what you're saying--that these are laws they implicitly agreed upon when registering. Then again, I'm not sure if implicit agreement is enough to qualify as consent of the governed.

Quote
Furthermore, I think you missed the central point of my earlier post. This Republic, and the union that came before it, is founded on the belief that all citizens, regardless of the conditions of their birth, has the right to live under a just, democratic government. When governments are unjust - when they violate the rights of the people, destabilize democratic institutions, and vest power in the hands of the few - then the people have the right to tear down that government and build a new one. What the fathers of our brand of democracy did not believe is that the people should have the right to overthrow just governments. Why? Because to rebel against the authority of a democratic government is a serious proposition, especially when it is the minority who rebel that does so. In doing so, the challengers are refusing to abide by the democratic determination of the people to abide by certain laws or follow certain leaders. If a Region can secede because it does not like the outcome of an election, what is the point of having elections? If a Region can secede because it does not like a particular law, what is the point of having laws? In both cases, a minority of the citizenry is refusing to abide by the democratic determination of the people. Not only does this destroy the idea of a federal union, it threatens the central tenant of our Republic: that we will submit our views to the democratic process.

Are there times when it may be necessary to oppose the government, even by force, even when a majority of citizens supports it? Yes. But those times are limited to when the government is actually infringing on the rights of the people, and in such cases it is unlikely that the ruling authorities will respect a Constitutional right to secession. In short, the only time in which such a right would mean anything at all is when secession is not permissible under the laws of Nature.

Sure, I understand that secession is many times not warranted. But I would argue that what's warranted or not isn't the point--consent of the governed is still valid even if the governed want to do something that doesn't necessarily make sense to people. In other words, people don't need to be violently oppressed to have the right to self-determination.

(And I'd also argue that the central tenant of our Republic is not that we will submit our views to the democratic process, but rather that we all have unalienable rights that mustn't be trampled on--and it's the government's job to make sure people don't trample on those rights, and punish those that do, and nothing much else. But I suppose that's where modern liberalism has drastically diverged from classical liberalism.)

     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.

Completely agreed. Especially the first paragraph (which is basically what I said but phrased better :P).

Honestly, I'm going to come out and say that I don't think three-fifths of the vote in a region is enough to grant independence. I think the option should be there, but three-fifths is far too low for such an important issue. I would say 2/3s at least, maybe even 3/4s.

Sure, you might be right. Would you rather there to be a backup plan/fail-safe as I described when I introduced the amendment, which itself might could be overturned by 3/4ths or something, or perhaps simply a higher threshold?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on October 14, 2015, 05:27:23 am
Aye, precisely on evergreen's reasoning.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: bore on October 14, 2015, 05:30:08 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on October 14, 2015, 11:06:52 am
Nay



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 14, 2015, 11:30:30 am
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_America), the United Arab Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 14, 2015, 01:44:32 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_America), the United Arab Republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: VPH on October 14, 2015, 03:51:38 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Talleyrand on October 14, 2015, 08:11:11 pm
I strongly urge the ConCon to support the President's reasonable plan and opt for 2 regions!!!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 14, 2015, 08:33:10 pm
Abstain


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 15, 2015, 08:03:07 am
NAY: 10
AYE: 7
ABSTAIN: 4

The amendment has failed to pass.

Now, it's time for Oakvale's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4757450#msg4757450);

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.

Delegates have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: rpryor03 on October 15, 2015, 08:32:02 am
I object to Oakvale's amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 15, 2015, 09:00:50 am
Would it just be easier to vote on all of the amendments - rather than waiting for the inevitable objections? It would speed things up.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 15, 2015, 09:19:30 am
No no, we must drag this out as long as possible.

Again I will say, there's literally no point in having a federal government if we are making succession legal. Do we want to have the confederation of Atlasia regions?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 15, 2015, 09:35:19 am
A 48-hours vote on Oakvale's amendment is now open. Please vote.

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 15, 2015, 09:38:43 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 15, 2015, 09:41:53 am
Nay

What's the point of having a game like Atlasia if we are letting secession?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 15, 2015, 09:49:47 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 15, 2015, 11:06:51 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 15, 2015, 12:02:18 pm
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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 15, 2015, 04:21:09 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 15, 2015, 04:29:43 pm
Nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 15, 2015, 04:41:12 pm
NAY, for the reasons Duke explained.

Likewise, this debate has gone on far too long and is taking up an inordinate amount of this Convention's time. Secession is an important issue, but there is no reason that we need to spend two weeks debating it. We've argued the issue to death by this point: I say we consider the outcome of this vote final and move on, whatever that outcome may be.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 15, 2015, 05:03:12 pm
    Aye

Nay

Again, no point in having a federal government if we are going to just allow secession. 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.

Then propose it. I'm tired of wasting time voting on amendment after amendment dealibg with secession. I'm not sure if it's a tactic used by its supporters to just derail the convention, but it's a waste of time. If we plan to have an actual constitution with an actual government, then having some soft provision allowing regions to just up and leave should their leaders decide they want to do it is just insane. By that point, there's no reason to have a government.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: NeverAgain on October 15, 2015, 05:11:59 pm
Abstain.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 15, 2015, 05:19:38 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: VPH on October 15, 2015, 05:45:57 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 15, 2015, 08:43:11 pm
aye (not a fascist)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clark Kent on October 15, 2015, 09:00:33 pm
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 15, 2015, 10:55:03 pm
NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 15, 2015, 11:52:23 pm
Abstain.

It's simply not specific enough. Technically TNF's Communist Theme Park would be legal under this. It can't be so subjective to where a rogue regional government can succeed without the consent of anyone, specifically it's own people.

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 16, 2015, 03:48:04 am
NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.

Yes, please do it, because we're literally at the point of casting successive votes on nearly identical amendments. Two of them were identical (this one and the past one), and the next two only differ based on 50% turnout versus 60% support.

This is getting rid-goddamn-diculous. It'll take a year at this rate to draft a new document, if we even get that far. If anything, nearly identical amendments should all be put up for a vote at once and if there is a conflict (as in, two or more variations pass), then hold a second "run-off" vote or whatever. There's no need for the procedure to be this tedious and extended. 


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: rpryor03 on October 16, 2015, 07:30:28 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 16, 2015, 02:55:47 pm
This is going to go nowhere if we're going to be voting on secession for the next few weeks.

I've never heard of a country having some "process" in place for a region or state or territory to seceed. Is this some new kind of phenomanon? Or are we just wanting to turn this into a confederation? Or is this just trolling?

Secession has always been part of Atlasia, but it was used as a way to raise awareness and increase activity, not to just quietly vote to leave. Then no one would care. What happens once a region leaves? They start their own little Atlasia? I don't understand.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 16, 2015, 03:43:30 pm
Mr. Presiding Officer, we have approved a motion to not allow secession.

Please put an end to this circus about secession and move on to other matters.

We cannot spend the next six months debating various and sundry motions about secession.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 16, 2015, 04:53:24 pm
Yes, we've voted on this issue enough. Whoever is leading this motley crew needs to bar anymore voting on the issue. It's just killing the efficiency of this convention. Like a lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to bring the same case over and over and over until you win it. That's why preclusion exists.  

Now, if we want to discuss making this a confederacy (minus the racism) where regions are autonomous and receive nothing from the federal government, I'm all ears.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Oakvale on October 16, 2015, 05:04:50 pm
AYE. Free the Northeast.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 16, 2015, 06:54:51 pm
Yes, we've voted on this issue enough. Whoever is leading this motley crew needs to bar anymore voting on the issue. It's just killing the efficiency of this convention. Like a lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to bring the same case over and over and over until you win it. That's why preclusion exists.  

Now, if we want to discuss making this a confederacy (minus the racism) where regions are autonomous and receive nothing from the federal government, I'm all ears.

Kind of like a national night watch state of sorts. Except in foreign policy matters of course.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 17, 2015, 04:01:27 am
Mr. Presiding Officer, we have approved a motion to not allow secession.

Please put an end to this circus about secession and move on to other matters.

We cannot spend the next six months debating various and sundry motions about secession.

He's the presiding officer, not the dictator. It isn't his job to stifle debate and force us to keep a bad amendment--sure, if it's gone crazy or repetitive he should stop it, but it hasn't--we're still trying to settle it, we're not really going in circles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason you and others are on this crusade against even talking about secession is that you like the first amendment and are afraid that another one will replace it because it only passed by one freaking vote.

And that's the key--may I remind all of the "it's settled" folk: it was 10 for, 9 against, 2 abstain, with 4 not voting--can you even call that a consensus when more people didn't vote for than those that did, and only 40% voted for it at all? It's certainly anything but settled!

Yes, we've voted on this issue enough. Whoever is leading this motley crew needs to bar anymore voting on the issue. It's just killing the efficiency of this convention. Like a lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to bring the same case over and over and over until you win it. That's why preclusion exists.

It's not the same case. My amendment, for example, is vastly different from Oakvale's (which, I'll totally agree, is silly--he just struck out "not" and called it an amendment) in that it details a simple mechanism, so it's the people with a say, not the government (either regional or federal). That's my goal in this secession stuff--self-government.

I've never heard of a country having some "process" in place for a region or state or territory to seceed.

Of course not, because (danger: cynicism ahead) governments naturally want unchallengeable authority over their people. I, however, am against that paradigm.

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.

Yes, please do it, because we're literally at the point of casting successive votes on nearly identical amendments. Two of them were identical (this one and the past one), and the next two only differ based on 50% turnout versus 60% support.

This is getting rid-goddamn-diculous. It'll take a year at this rate to draft a new document, if we even get that far. If anything, nearly identical amendments should all be put up for a vote at once and if there is a conflict (as in, two or more variations pass), then hold a second "run-off" vote or whatever. There's no need for the procedure to be this tedious and extended. 

But it makes no difference! I, for one, am not going to be any more likely to not introduce an amendment due to some silly tactic of voting "nay" in protest than I would if you simply said "hey, this is ridiculous" and still voted based on what you thought. I mean, that would be stupid if a good amendment is voted down narrowly because someone is doing this crap!

Regarding the voting multiple amendments at the same time, yeah, I like that. Good idea!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 17, 2015, 10:04:41 am
NAY: 9
AYE: 7
ABSTAIN: 2

The amendment has failed to pass.

Now, it's time for Leinad's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4758310#msg4758310):

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede discuss secession from Atlasia or any of its territories. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fifths majority of the vote, independence will be granted by law.

Delegates have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 17, 2015, 11:48:18 am


Now, it's time for Leinad's amendment (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4758310#msg4758310):

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede discuss secession from Atlasia or any of its territories. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fifths majority of the vote, independence will be granted by law.

Delegates have 24 hours to object.

I object to this amendment.  I have no objection to anyone having the right to discuss secession. Obviously, anyone has the right to discuss anything they want.

But now he is introducing states into the equation.  States discussing seceding from the nation?  This is a bit much.

This amendment is too vague, as it talks about a referendum for independence, but it does not clarify if this is a referendum in a region or in a state.  Are we to assume he is talking about a referendum in a region?  I believe this is what he is referring to.  But in the previous sentence, he talks about states as well, not just regions.

Besides, a three-fifths majority may not be enough to start dismantling the country over.      


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 17, 2015, 04:11:03 pm
A 48-hours vote on this amendment is now open. Please vote.

Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
?.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede discuss secession from Atlasia or any of its territories. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fifths majority of the vote, independence will be granted by law.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 17, 2015, 04:16:14 pm
Aye

Regardless of whether or not you like the idea of secession, a procedure should be in place if the vast majority of a region ever feels that their rights are being trampled on and secession is the only way to create progress.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 17, 2015, 04:51:50 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 17, 2015, 05:05:16 pm
Nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: rpryor03 on October 17, 2015, 05:23:44 pm
Nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 17, 2015, 07:09:06 pm
Nay, though this is the best amendment so far. If this ends up being adopted, I would recommend the following changes:

1. Replace "discuss secession" with "secede". Obviously, citizens have the right to discuss secession - the question is whether they have the right to actually separate.
2. Remove "states and groups" from the list of bodies that may legally secede. Since most states have 1-2 inhabitants at most, allowing states to secede would inevitably result in trolling (does anyone really think that me and JCL need our own country?). "Groups" is horribly vague and should be struck from the text regardless of whether secession is legal or not.
3. Raise the threshold to two-thirds (at minimum).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 17, 2015, 07:11:57 pm


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 17, 2015, 07:24:37 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 17, 2015, 08:16:16 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 17, 2015, 08:32:16 pm
I propose the following amendment:
Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
?.  Regions shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fourths majority of the vote in the region in question, independence will be granted by law.

As I have said, this isn't about whether or not you support secession. It is merely about putting a process in place. I have proposed strict guidelines because I don't think secession should be easy. If 3/4s of a region want to secede, especially considering we are likely to have two-three diverse regions, rather then five currently, I think there should be a process in place that allows for them to.

I find this to be a reasonable compromise between what both sides are asking for. I urge others to withdraw their amendments and lets vote on this one.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 17, 2015, 10:02:58 pm
Nay. No further comment


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on October 18, 2015, 12:25:55 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 18, 2015, 12:34:25 am
This reminds me of that time that Governor Tmth et al just kept droning the Mideast with one constitutional abortion ban after another until they finally got their way. It seems like it was like the 10th one that finally passed, probably because people just grew apathetic over voting against abortion bans one right after the other and stopped responding to GOTV PMs. I wonder if that's the aim here?

...

I propose the following amendment:
Quote
Section ?: Regional Boundaries
?.  Regions shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia. If a referendum for independence, overseen by the Secretary of Federal Elections, passes with a three-fourths majority of the vote in the region in question, independence will be granted by law.

As I have said, this isn't about whether or not you support secession. It is merely about putting a process in place. I have proposed strict guidelines because I don't think secession should be easy. If 3/4s of a region want to secede, especially considering we are likely to have two-three diverse regions, rather then five currently, I think there should be a process in place that allows for them to.

I find this to be a reasonable compromise between what both sides are asking for. I urge others to withdraw their amendments and lets vote on this one.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 18, 2015, 02:48:24 am
I propose we:

- vote on the Clyde and Tmth's amendment;
- then, if these two amendments are NOT approved, we vote on a simple ballot: "Should secession be legal?".


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 18, 2015, 02:53:42 am
I'm against secession, but I think Tmthforu's amendment is a very sensible amendment and that it might be a good compromise. This doesn't mean I'm in favour of secession. I think secession doesn't make sense in a game like Atlasia, but this amendment is a lot better than the others.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 18, 2015, 03:04:15 am
Nay on the Leinad's amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 18, 2015, 03:11:05 am
NAY


But I would be open to changing my opinion on a higher threshold like say that of Tmth's. Sorry, Leinad. :(


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 18, 2015, 07:28:39 am
Aye!

I suppose Cris's idea is good enough. And I also agree with Truman on the wording and such--I was basically wording it the same as the original Classic Conservative amendment.

I also support Tmth's amendment. (Also, what's with people changing their display names to versions of Classic Conservative? I must admit, part of me wants to change mine to "Classic(al) Liberal!" But only part...)

This reminds me of that time that Governor Tmth et al just kept droning the Mideast with one constitutional abortion ban after another until they finally got their way. It seems like it was like the 10th one that finally passed, probably because people just grew apathetic over voting against abortion bans one right after the other and stopped responding to GOTV PMs. I wonder if that's the aim here?

Yeah, we're in collusion to spam the Convention with amendment after amendment until we get our way by boring everyone to submission. ::)

(Seriously, though, we're not coordinating at all, especially not in some evil scheme to ruin Atlasia. Removeth thou tinfoil hat.)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 18, 2015, 08:51:56 am
Yay on Leinad's amendment. With Truman's suggestions added would be better.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clark Kent on October 18, 2015, 09:51:19 am
NAY on Leinad's amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 18, 2015, 11:53:23 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Oakvale on October 18, 2015, 12:08:28 pm
Aye guess.

I second the motion for a simple "Should secession be legal?" ballot to settle this issue and see those of us who value democracy and human rights can best proceed.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: bore on October 18, 2015, 12:14:57 pm
Aye



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 18, 2015, 12:36:59 pm
Aye guess.

I second the motion for a simple "Should secession be legal?" ballot to settle this issue and see those of us who value democracy and human rights can best proceed.
Thirded. We should have a 'principle' vote - before moving into how to implement it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 18, 2015, 12:49:36 pm
Aye guess.

I second the motion for a simple "Should secession be legal?" ballot to settle this issue and see those of us who value democracy and human rights can best proceed.
Thirded. We should have a 'principle' vote - before moving into how to implement it.
This exactly - I would suggest doing this as soon as the current vote is over.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: VPH on October 18, 2015, 01:07:56 pm
Nay, I support 3/4 instead of 3/5


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 18, 2015, 03:20:03 pm
Going forward, when making decisions on secession, I would like to remind delegates that a majority of Atlasians recently polled SUPPORT having a clause in the constitution that establishes a process for secession, and the vast majority of citizens who have publicly spoken on the issue also support it.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=221165.0


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 18, 2015, 03:40:19 pm
If we have seccesion it should be 3/4 but I still won't any measure it allows seccesion


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 18, 2015, 03:56:15 pm
Aye guess.

I second the motion for a simple "Should secession be legal?" ballot to settle this issue and see those of us who value democracy and human rights can best proceed.
Thirded. We should have a 'principle' vote - before moving into how to implement it.
This exactly - I would suggest doing this as soon as the current vote is over.
I'd like to remember that after this amendment there is a Clyde's amendment and a Tmthforu's amendment.
I planned to do that after the vote on these two amendments (if both won't pass) but if both Clyde and Tmthforu want to withdraw their amendments,  I'll hold this vote soon. But I can't force them to withdraw their amendments if they don't want.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: ilikeverin on October 18, 2015, 09:56:18 pm
I vote ;D on the amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 18, 2015, 10:32:07 pm
I think our best bet is to design a simple text with a 75% threshold for passage and then pass it so we can move on to the most important issue of all. Deciding the number of regions, once we have that settled, the discussion on the structure of the Legislative branch can proceed.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 18, 2015, 10:46:54 pm
Nay on Leinads amendment


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 19, 2015, 09:59:30 am
Aye guess.

I second the motion for a simple "Should secession be legal?" ballot to settle this issue and see those of us who value democracy and human rights can best proceed.
Thirded. We should have a 'principle' vote - before moving into how to implement it.
This exactly - I would suggest doing this as soon as the current vote is over.
I'd like to remember that after this amendment there is a Clyde's amendment and a Tmthforu's amendment.
I planned to do that after the vote on these two amendments (if both won't pass) but if both Clyde and Tmthforu want to withdraw their amendments,  I'll hold this vote soon. But I can't force them to withdraw their amendments if they don't want.
I'd prefer to hold the principle vote before voting on my amendment - if the principle vote goes against succession, then I'll withdraw it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 19, 2015, 10:16:58 am
Aye guess.

I second the motion for a simple "Should secession be legal?" ballot to settle this issue and see those of us who value democracy and human rights can best proceed.
Thirded. We should have a 'principle' vote - before moving into how to implement it.
This exactly - I would suggest doing this as soon as the current vote is over.
I'd like to remember that after this amendment there is a Clyde's amendment and a Tmthforu's amendment.
I planned to do that after the vote on these two amendments (if both won't pass) but if both Clyde and Tmthforu want to withdraw their amendments,  I'll hold this vote soon. But I can't force them to withdraw their amendments if they don't want.
I'd prefer to hold the principle vote before voting on my amendment - if the principle vote goes against succession, then I'll withdraw it.
If Tmthforu is not willing to withdraw his amendment, the principle vote will be held after the votes on your two amendments.
If Tmthforu wants to withdraw his amendment, I'll hold a principle vote soon and then, if it's in favour of secession, we'll vote on your amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 19, 2015, 01:45:50 pm
     Aye. This is getting tiring, though.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 19, 2015, 01:49:16 pm
I will withdraw my amendment for the time being in order to allow a principle vote to occur. I hope that delegates respect the will of The People.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 19, 2015, 01:58:37 pm
I will withdraw my amendment for the time being in order to allow a principle vote to occur. I hope that delegates respect the will of The People.
There will not be a public election. Only ConCon delegates will vote on it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 19, 2015, 02:03:05 pm
I will withdraw my amendment for the time being in order to allow a principle vote to occur. I hope that delegates respect the will of The People.
There will not be a public election. Only ConCon delegates will vote on it.
I am aware of how the rules work. I am referencing a recent poll done where a majority of respondents supported including a clause for secession.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 19, 2015, 03:56:08 pm
Can someone just answer me this: what country in this world with a valid, enforceable constitution has a provision allowing an entire region to seceed by popular vote? Or one that has a provision allowing secession at all?

I ask this because this idea goes against the basic purpose of a constitution. If a region can leave without ramifications whenever they disagree with something, I see no point in having a federal constitution at all. Nor a country for that matter.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on October 20, 2015, 08:08:44 am
Can someone just answer me this: what country in this world with a valid, enforceable constitution has a provision allowing an entire region to seceed by popular vote? Or one that has a provision allowing secession at all?

A country that recognizes that power is fundementally derived from the rights of the people, and that if the vast majority of a certain group of people want a different government safeguarding those rights, the federal government has no legitimate justification to deny them that.

Obviously no country recognizes that. Doesn't mean they shouldn't.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 20, 2015, 08:17:50 am
AYE: 9
NAY: 12
ABSTAIN: 0

The amendment failed to pass.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 20, 2015, 08:20:18 am
Now, it's time for a principle vote on secession. I'm including the Abstain option because it's included in every vote of every contest.

Quote
Should secession be legal?
[  ] YES       [  ] NO       [  ] ABSTAIN


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on October 20, 2015, 08:27:17 am
Quote
Should secession be legal?
[X] YES       [  ] NO       [  ] ABSTAIN
(not a fascist)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 20, 2015, 09:25:31 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 20, 2015, 09:54:31 am
Now, it's time for a principle vote on secession. I'm including the Abstain option because it's included in every vote of every contest.

Quote
Should secession be legal?
[ X ] YES       [  ] NO       [  ] ABSTAIN


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 20, 2015, 09:55:21 am
No.

Again: I don't get why in a game like Atlasia we should let regions seceed. It wouldn't make sense having other games in the game.

But if secession will be allowed, I'll support the Tmthforu's common-sense amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 20, 2015, 11:30:12 am
NO!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clark Kent on October 20, 2015, 12:58:34 pm
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 20, 2015, 01:53:22 pm
NO NO NO


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 20, 2015, 01:53:44 pm
     Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 20, 2015, 01:55:01 pm
Yes, because I respect the will of the people and don't want a legal mess on our hands in the future.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: bore on October 20, 2015, 02:00:03 pm
Yes

(As a side note I think votes like these are the best way to proceed on all of the questions, rather than just proposing lots of random amendments, and after this vote I move that we have a vote on the number of regions we want)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: NeverAgain on October 20, 2015, 02:41:14 pm
Yes, but we must have it as a referendum or governmental procedure. Disrupting Atlasia with willy-nilly secessionist movements will destroy us.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 20, 2015, 02:55:04 pm
For the last time, No!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 20, 2015, 03:06:47 pm
Yes, because I respect the will of the people and don't want a legal mess on our hands in the future.

What on earth? It's not illegal for secession to be outlawed in a government constitution. It's the law of the land, you see.

Finally, no one is forcing a certain person to live in this country. They can leave. But Atlasia won't be a functioning country if we're just going to allow regions to leave whenever they want. A nation is all about sovereignty and enforcing its borders. Allowing secession entirely nullifies that.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 20, 2015, 04:35:10 pm
NAY!

(As a side note I think votes like these are the best way to proceed on all of the questions, rather than just proposing lots of random amendments, and after this vote I move that we have a vote on the number of regions we want)
I second this.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: rpryor03 on October 20, 2015, 04:40:52 pm
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 20, 2015, 08:02:45 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Oakvale on October 20, 2015, 09:37:08 pm
Aye (respect human rights)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 20, 2015, 10:29:22 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Leinad on October 20, 2015, 11:17:37 pm
AYE!

Now it's tied 9-9 by my count, with 7 still to vote. Come on, people, side with human rights and against unchallengeable government!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 20, 2015, 11:25:31 pm
I will do my best to make sure voters are aware next weekend of who is respecting The People's will and who isn't.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 21, 2015, 10:05:46 am
Nay

This entire thing has gotten out of hand. So now having a government is contrary to human rights?

If men were angels....then maybe it wouldn't be necessary. And I've spoken for The People all my life in Atlasia. I won't let anyone start trying to define what They want. They've never been one to give up, one to call for division rather than unity, one to pick up their toys and walk away when things aren't as they please. That's all this amendment encourages. Don't agree, then leave! You can do it without any penalty! But that's never been what The People stand for. The People are fighters. They fight to change the government with pitch forks, love and comradery, not through an orderly vote for secession. That would be a boring way out.

Secession and the like has a place in this game but no place in the constitution. Otherwise, secession loses its teeth. Who cares if someone leaves if it's legal? How do they make a point? I don't understand the supporters except that it's purely ideology and not practical. I do appreciate Leiland at least being candid about that fact. :P


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 21, 2015, 11:15:57 am
How much longer is this secessionist circus going to go on?

Until the secessionist advocates keep on offering amendment after amendment after amendment until they get their own way?

If the right of secession is embedded in the constitution, we will have malcontents and jokesters trying to take advantage of this law every second week, and attempting to disrupt the nation and to break up the country.   


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 21, 2015, 11:48:17 am
How much longer is this secessionist circus going to go on?

Until the secessionist advocates keep on offering amendment after amendment after amendment until they get their own way?
...

We are during a principle vote right now...which was originally suggested by myself and others over a week ago.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 21, 2015, 12:45:05 pm
Aye under Tmth or Leinad's amendments.

The right of self government must be respected even by national level governments.

Spain take note and let Catalonia peacefully go.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 21, 2015, 12:57:29 pm
Lmao oakvale.


I honestly dont care about this issue.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: VPH on October 21, 2015, 02:39:01 pm
Aye for game reform purposes.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 22, 2015, 02:34:35 am
After some thought:
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: ilikeverin on October 22, 2015, 07:34:07 am
Yup! ;D


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 22, 2015, 08:32:11 am
AYE - 12
NAY - 10
ABSTAIN - 0

AYEs won, so secession will be allowed in the new text drafted by the Constitutional Convention.

I propose that now we:

- hold a 24-hours debate on the number of regions;
- hold a 48-hours principle vote on the number of regions (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, >5 the options)
- then discussing amendments about secession and number of regions (saying that we are allowing secession it's not enough, we should clarify some things. The same for regions: we should draft the new regions map).




Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 22, 2015, 11:24:58 am
While I voted against allowing secession, it is now the duty of every delegate to respect the democratic process and work to build a fair and straightforward framework by which Regions can separate from Atlasia. It is time to lay this issue to rest.

I propose that now we:

- hold a 24-hours debate on the number of regions;
- hold a 48-hours principle vote on the number of regions (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, >5 the options)
- then discussing amendments about secession and number of regions (saying that we are allowing secession it's not enough, we should clarify some things. The same for regions: we should draft the new regions map).

I would recommend removing 1 and >5 as options: having only one Region would be pointless (you would basically have two federal governments), and I doubt that there's anyone here who thinks we have too few Regions.

As others have said before me, a three-Region map is the best option on the table. By going from five to three Regions, we would eliminate ~18 offices nationally, assuming each Region adopts a five-man government (1 governor, 3 legislators, 1 judge). Two Regions isn't a terrible idea, but I worry that such a map might decrease the number of positions too greatly, making it harder for new players to get their foot in the door.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 22, 2015, 11:27:05 am
I move to establish a 3 region map using the map that was most preferred by a popular vote a few months ago. It makes the most sense and is aesthetically pleasing to my eye and it should be to yours too.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 22, 2015, 11:45:14 am
I move to establish a 3 region map using the map that was most preferred by a popular vote a few months ago. It makes the most sense and is aesthetically pleasing to my eye and it should be to yours too.

Seconded. The map had broad support, and the least thing we need in weeks of debate on "no, that state should be on my region!"


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 22, 2015, 11:45:51 am
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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 22, 2015, 12:03:12 pm
Let's not screw the regions issue up as well.

Clearly, three regions is the only way to go.

Something along these lines, give or take.

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 22, 2015, 12:08:26 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? :P

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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 22, 2015, 12:17:19 pm
I would say adopt three regions, then do a quick vote on which region certain states should be in. For example, thinking of population centers, it would make more sense for Kansas to be linked with Missouri and Oklahoma.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 22, 2015, 12:31:04 pm
I would say adopt three regions, then do a quick vote on which region certain states should be in. For example, thinking of population centers, it would make more sense for Kansas to be linked with Missouri and Oklahoma.

Like this

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 22, 2015, 12:42:43 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? :P

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.   


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 22, 2015, 01:46:44 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? :P

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.   

Kind of makes the rest of this almost pointless, no? Why have a constitution that no region really needs to abide by.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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? :P

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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Clark Kent on October 22, 2015, 02:27:54 pm
Maybe something like this:

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 22, 2015, 03:12:42 pm
Thanks for the proposals.

Tomorrow, I'll open a principle vote on the number of regions. Then we'll debate about the regions map and about details of secession.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 22, 2015, 05:48:03 pm
No to Indiana being put in the Northeast. We're closer to the South culturally.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 22, 2015, 06:01:40 pm
I would urge my fellow delegates not to get too tied up over which state goes in what Region. Ultimately, such debates are unimportant and only distract from the main issue: the necessity of Regional consolidation. The map adopted by the 2nd CARCA is an aesthetically pleasing, historically congruent proposal that has the support of a majority of active Atlasians. There is no need to spend another three weeks debating different maps when we already have a perfectly acceptable option on the table.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: VPH on October 22, 2015, 06:20:52 pm
I urge the existence of 4 regions.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 22, 2015, 07:18:32 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.
Simply playing devils advocate, I don't think it is necessary that every region has an equal number of states - including D.C., this map has between 12-14 states in each region and looks aesthetically pleasing. It also, for the most part, keeps each state in a region most identifiable to its people.

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 22, 2015, 07:28:32 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.
Simply playing devils advocate, I don't think it is necessary that every region has an equal number of states - including D.C., this map has between 12-14 states in each region and looks aesthetically pleasing. It also, for the most part, keeps each state in a region most identifiable to its people.

()

I really like this map here.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON PRINCIPLE VOTE)
Post by: NeverAgain on October 22, 2015, 10:14:40 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.
Simply playing devils advocate, I don't think it is necessary that every region has an equal number of states - including D.C., this map has between 12-14 states in each region and looks aesthetically pleasing. It also, for the most part, keeps each state in a region most identifiable to its people.

()

I really like this map here.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 23, 2015, 07:33:13 am
Now, it's time for a STV (so preference order) principle vote that will last for the next 48 hours. Delegates, please vote!

Quote
How many regions there should be?

[] 0
[] 1
[] 2
[] 3
[] 4
[] 5


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: ilikeverin on October 23, 2015, 08:46:16 am
Friends,

*hughughug*

I come before you today on a matter of grave importance.  I come before you worried about the future of Atlasia.  Never in my 11 years in Atlasia have I seen so many important decisions rushed to completion.  Now we are asked, in the next 48 hours, to take a vote on an issue of utmost importance.  I stand before you asking you to vote for five regions, or to vote for none.

In the past year or so, a coterie of opinionated Atlasians has managed to influence public opinion in this country.  They promise a quick fix.  All will be right in Atlasia, they say, if we just pare down the number of regions.  Kill the Midwest on the sacrificial altar, and the destruction of its beating heart will allow our nation prosperity.

But, I ask you: why?  What purpose does this serve?  They tell us that the regions are dying, and they tell us that it is because these regions are unsustainable in population.  They are "too small".  But, as the oldest continuously-registered Atlasian, I tell you today that this is false.  I have been involved in Midwestern politics since the very start.  I was Atlasia's first elected governor.  My region has always been proud, but small.  It has sometimes been the least active region, but sometimes the most - in fact, it was both during my many stints as Governor.  It was active not despite its size, but sometimes because of it.  Having a small region allowed us to communicate much more effectively. The idea that the size of a region determines its activity is, quite simply, wrong.

What do we gain, then, by decreasing the number of regions to a value like four, three, or two?  Nothing.  We simply lose a critical part of Atlasia's history, all for the sake of packing more people into a frame of government that actively conspires against making Atlasia a more interesting place.

The problem with the regions is not the number of people in them.  The problem with the regions is that, as currently formulated, they serve no purpose.  What is the point of the regional governments as they are currently designed?  In the past, they were seen as gateways to national service.  But since when have we evaluated candidates in this country based on their past peformance in office, rather than their policy positions?  We have seen Presidents with a wide, wide range of experience before they have come into the Presidency.  Do we really care about past experience?  Do you really need to have worked your way up through the ranks to be a good Atlasian officeholder?

Nay, but I go further: regions, as they currently are, are injurious to Atlasia as a whole.  For they silo activity into separate quadrants (well,  pentants?).  I, as a Midwesterner, have essentially been without a competent government for quite some time (although I appreciate the efforts of governor tmth recently for setting that at least partially right, although we obviously disagree quite sharply on the idea of abolishing regional governments).  I hear rumors that the Northeast is contemplating secession(? back in my day, that was the Southeast), that the Pacific might be a mess or something... I haven't the faintest clue what is occurring in the Mideast or the Southeast, to be quite honest.  But what is the point of me paying any attention to the governments that aren't mine?  I cannot influence their policies.  I gain nothing from trying to do so, or trying to stay informed at all.

Let us say that a brilliant white knight rides in to the State of Mirth tomorrow and leads the Midwest into a boom period.  For the first time in a long time, we have interesting policy debates, competitive elections, and citizens who are motivated to contribute as a result of his contributions.  What would that mean to the average citizen of Ohio?  California?  Puerto Rico?  Nothing, nothing, and nothing.

To my mind, there are two solutions to this dilemma.  The first is to vote for zero regions.  Doing so would eliminate this sclerotic part of Atlasia's history.  Yes, yes, of course: we would lose an important part of our history.  I agree.  I would miss the Midwest.  You would miss some other region, I'm sure.  But, unlike what reducing the number of regions would do, this would not be the sacrifice of one to the detriment of all.  This would liberate Atlasia from the shackles of a failed regional system.  It would destroy the silos of the regions.  All would be free to contribute to Atlasia in a way that improves the nation as a whole, rather than a group of states.  We could contemplate bicameralism.  We could certainly have more competitive elections, featuring a national roster of candidates.  We could forge a new nation, and one that returns to the historical roots of our country: elections, not government.

The second is to vote for five, but only if we then do something unexpected: abolish the federal government.  I laid out the problems for regions as they are.  But what about regions as they could be?  Imagine an Atlasia full of foreign policy, as each region is forced to make treaties, alliances, or war with the others.  Imagine an Atlasia with immigrants, not just re-registrants.  Imagine an Atlasia where your state of registration actually matters.  This is an Atlasia without the federal government.  Regions would gain new life because they would be the life of Atlasia.

I ask that you take these comments into guidance, friends, and tell me: do you want to throw the Mideast into the bog in the hopes of appeasing angry Woden?  Will putting more passengers into fewer staterooms on a sinking Titanic really fix things?  Or should we embark on a new journey for Atlasia, in the hopes that we find somewhere ultimately more fulfilling and more useful?

Thank you for your time.  May Dave *hughughug* Atlasia.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: ilikeverin on October 23, 2015, 08:46:52 am
I vote:

[1] 5
[2] 0
[3] 4
[4] 3
[5] 2
[6] 1 (wtf)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: rpryor03 on October 23, 2015, 09:21:06 am
[5] 0
[5] 1
[2] 2
[1] 3
[3] 4
[4] 5


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 23, 2015, 09:28:06 am
1. 3
2. 5
3. 0
4. 2
5. 4

No point in referencing 1 region. May as well make it 0.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 23, 2015, 10:06:05 am
[5] 0
[6] 1
[3] 2
[1] 3
[2] 4
[4] 5


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 23, 2015, 10:41:54 am
Quote
How many regions there should be?

[5] 0
[6] 1
[4] 2
[2] 3
[3] 4
[1] 5
Isn't 0 and 1 the same thing in practice...?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on October 23, 2015, 10:52:36 am
[2] 0
[6] 1
[5] 2
[1] 3
[3] 4
[4] 5


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 23, 2015, 11:25:35 am
1.  3 regions  (first preference)
2.  4 regions  (second preference)
3.  2  regions (third preference)
4.  5  regions (fourth preference)
5.  0  regions (fifth preference)
6.  1  region  (sixth preference)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 23, 2015, 01:40:11 pm
1. 5
2. 4
3. 3
4. 0
5. 2


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 23, 2015, 02:02:12 pm
How many regions there should be?

[1] 3
[2] 4


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: NeverAgain on October 23, 2015, 02:25:51 pm
[1] 3
[2] 4
[3] 5
[4] 2
[5] 0
[6] 1


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 23, 2015, 06:13:38 pm
[1] 4
[2] 3
[3] 5
[4] 2
[6] 0
[6] 1


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 23, 2015, 06:36:01 pm
[1] Three Regions
[2] Two Regions
[3] Four Regions

Having one Region is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I've heard in all my time in Atlasia.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 23, 2015, 09:04:34 pm
1. Five Regions
2. Four Regions

Having anything less is absolutely not logical.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Leinad on October 23, 2015, 10:05:04 pm
[1] 3 regions
[2] 4 regions
[3] 5 regions
[4] 2 regions


I think there's a place for regions in the game. Eliminating regions, or the federal government, would be a terrible mistake. The two-tiered system is a good thing--it needs to be reformed, sure, but that's what a Constitutional Convention is for!

However, I think there are too many seats for the level of activity. How do I know this? Not a single person declared for candidacy to the South legislature last election. We needed to elect people via write-in, and none of them have sworn in yet (not that I haven't reminded them to).

There are two ways to fix this general problem: increase the number of active players (which is hard), or decrease the number of seats. Surely this isn't a false premise, but rather basic math! And while there are multiple ways to decrease seats, decreasing the number of regions is the easiest way, as much as it has the regrettable unintended consequence of zapping history in the game (then again, we're already doing that intentionally via wiping all laws). It's something that I think we have to do to help sustain the New Atlasia.

That 4-region map above simply won't work--does anyone think that West region will have as much activity as that Northeast region? I know that the regions fluctuate in size--but starting it on such unequal footing is just ridiculous. That's why I'm against putting Minnesota and Iowa in the same region as the Northeast, as it is in the CARCA map, even though it's currently in the same region as most of that CARCA map's west region!

Also, I'm not sure if a 4-region map is such a great idea anyway. I think that all of the downsides of altering the system we've had for over a decade, longer than most of us have been here, are still felt in a 4-region system as much as a 3-region one (unless it's nothing more than merging the Pacific and Midwest--an interesting idea). And at the same time, I'm not sure if the upsides of cutting it to 3 are preserved--it's only half the decrease in regions. Not to mention, forget bicameralism completely if we do this--that would only work in a 3-region system if even then.

And as I said regarding 2 regions--if cutting it to 3 can't save us, I doubt 2 will.

(P.S. I am not a malcontent, not a jokester (well, I am, but not in every sense), not really a secessionist, and if anyone thinks I'm trying to kill Atlasia off, that's about as far from my intentions as calling Richard Dawkins an Evangelical Christian. Also, of course we're going to put restrictions on this. We're not going to let anyone leave with anything other than a supermajority from the people of that region--even I would oppose a less strict plan. Don't be silly.)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 24, 2015, 03:15:24 pm
1. 3 regions
2. 4 regions
3. 2 regions


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 25, 2015, 04:31:43 am
1) 3 regions
2) 2 regions
3) 4 regions
4) 5 regions


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 25, 2015, 05:30:34 am
Quote
How many regions there should be?

Pref   # of Regions

[3] 0
[4] 1
[2] 2
[1] 3
[5] 4
[6] 5


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: VPH on October 25, 2015, 11:58:36 am
How many regions there should be?

Preference (1 being what I want most)

[ 5 ] 0 regions
[ 6 ] 1 region
[ 4 ] 2 regions
[ 2 ] 3 regions
[ 1 ] 4 regions
[ 3 ] 5 regions


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 25, 2015, 12:01:59 pm
How many regions there should be?

[] 0
[] 1
[] 2
[1] 3
[2] 4
[3] 5


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: ilikeverin on October 25, 2015, 01:25:14 pm
I think there's a place for regions in the game. Eliminating regions, or the federal government, would be a terrible mistake.

Why?  Provide positive evidence for your assertion that such a system is a good idea.  You have provided evidence against your idea, which is an intriguing rhetorical angle:

Quote
Not a single person declared for candidacy to the South legislature last election. We needed to elect people via write-in, and none of them have sworn in yet (not that I haven't reminded them to).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Clark Kent on October 25, 2015, 01:29:58 pm
[1] 4 regions
[2] 3 regions


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 25, 2015, 01:42:02 pm
I think there's a place for regions in the game. Eliminating regions, or the federal government, would be a terrible mistake.

Why?  Provide positive evidence for your assertion that such a system is a good idea.  You have provided evidence against your idea, which is an intriguing rhetorical angle:

Quote
Not a single person declared for candidacy to the South legislature last election. We needed to elect people via write-in, and none of them have sworn in yet (not that I haven't reminded them to).
I think the idea is that with less regions and positions, elections would become more competitive. I would point to the Northeast now or how the Mideast used to be a year or so ago - heck, once we had 11 candidates running for 5 spots in the Assembly. If we can establish three regions that look like that, I think it is inherently a good thing.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Leinad on October 25, 2015, 03:03:11 pm
I think there's a place for regions in the game. Eliminating regions, or the federal government, would be a terrible mistake.

Why?  Provide positive evidence for your assertion that such a system is a good idea.  You have provided evidence against your idea, which is an intriguing rhetorical angle:

Quote
Not a single person declared for candidacy to the South legislature last election. We needed to elect people via write-in, and none of them have sworn in yet (not that I haven't reminded them to).

Yeah, basically what Tmth said.

Also, my evidence is against 5 regions, not against regions in general. I suppose you could draw a conclusion that regions in general are a bad idea, but that seems as silly as giving up on sandwiches because you didn't like a tuna salad and peanut butter one.

To provide evidence for the idea, I'd say that the two-tiered system where people can be introduced to the game on the smaller scale of the regional legislature is good. Also, think about how much of the structure of the current Atlasia you'd lose: the positions of governor and regional legislator completely. This isn't an insignificant part of the game eliminating regions would destroy--it's a fairly large part.

I think that regions are a good idea, it's just that we don't really have the capacity for 5. Fortunately that seems to be the consensus here as well.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: bore on October 25, 2015, 04:51:14 pm
1. 2 regions
2. 3 regions
3. 4 regions


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Oakvale on October 25, 2015, 06:23:53 pm
[1] 2 regions
[2] 3 regions


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 26, 2015, 01:21:01 am
Results coming in a few hours.
Sorry for the delay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 26, 2015, 07:53:17 am
The 3-regions option won the vote.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 26, 2015, 12:31:36 pm
In that case, I offer the following amendment:

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The first Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The second Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Jefferson."
iv. The third Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 26, 2015, 01:19:39 pm
Delegates have 24 hours to object.

PS: it's Article IV. Regulations approved by the Senate say we should propose replacements to the current Constitution. So we should keep the current structure (Article IV = regions, Article II = Presidency/VP, to make 2 examples) as much as possible.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 26, 2015, 01:23:28 pm
I object considering the map endorsed by the convention of regional consolidation isn't this map.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON # OF REGIONS)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 26, 2015, 01:25:49 pm
To make it easier for delegates, this is the Truman's proposal:

()

I'd like to invite you to not object to this first proposal because of the position of one or two states. We can change some things with other amendments.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 26, 2015, 01:30:11 pm
Fine you're right,
I don't object anymore.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 26, 2015, 02:08:42 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 26, 2015, 02:22:21 pm
I object.

I like the map, however, Jefferson was a slave owner, and I do not believe a region of Atlasia should be named after a slave owner.

I know he advocated for emancipation, however, the fact remains that he was a major slave owner throughout his lifetime.

This does not reflect well as a name for a region I believe.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 26, 2015, 02:42:04 pm
I object.

I like the map, however, Jefferson was a slave owner, and I do not believe a region of Atlasia should be named after a slave owner.

I know he advocated for emancipation, however, the fact remains that he was a major slave owner throughout his lifetime.

This does not reflect well as a name for a region I believe.


You should do like me. No objecting, and then after it is passed, propose an amendment changing the name of the region.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 26, 2015, 02:47:56 pm
Did anyone post the popularly selected one from a few months ago? I think that's our best choice going forward.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 26, 2015, 03:11:42 pm
I object considering the map endorsed by the convention of regional consolidation isn't this map.

Did anyone post the popularly selected one from a few months ago? I think that's our best choice going forward.

I will amend my amendment to put MN and IA in Franklin (the North), which is the only difference between my proposal and the CARCA map.

I like the map, however, Jefferson was a slave owner, and I do not believe a region of Atlasia should be named after a slave owner.
Slavery was hardly the only aspect of Jefferson's legacy; however, if the delegates would prefer a different name, perhaps Marshall (for Thurgood) or Keller (for Hellen) would work?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: ilikeverin on October 26, 2015, 03:27:21 pm
If we insist on naming the regions after historical figures, why not pick Atlasian ones rather than ones from the fictional entity of "America"?  The first three presidents were Nym, Gustaf, and John F. Kennedy.  Demrepdan was the author of the First Constitution.  We also have one late Atlas Forum member, Cheesewhiz, who was active in Atlasia for some time.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 26, 2015, 03:39:28 pm
If we insist on naming the regions after historical figures, why not pick Atlasian ones rather than ones from the fictional entity of "America"?  The first three presidents were Nym, Gustaf, and John F. Kennedy.  Demrepdan was the author of the First Constitution.  We also have one late Atlas Forum member, Cheesewhiz, who was active in Atlasia for some time.

I like this idea FTR


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 26, 2015, 03:50:34 pm
I'd prefer to use names from American history, which are more recognizable to new users and sound less made-up and awkward.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 26, 2015, 04:28:45 pm
I do not like the idea at all of naming the regions after Atlasians.

I much prefer historical figures.

I have come up with a list of three individuals who have all served as Chief Justice of the United States.

Ellsworth, from Connecticut (north), appointed by Washington, no party

Vinson, from Kentucky (south), appointed by Truman, Democrat

Warren, from California (west), appointed by Eisenhower, Republican

I believe these are three good picks, of historical significance from each region, one appointed by a President of no party, one appointed by a Democratic President, one appointed by a Republican President.

I believe this list is fair and balanced, and all three names are suitable names for  geographic locations.

Although they do have political backgrounds, nevertheless, their significant achievements and what they are most remembered for is their service on the Supreme Court and as Chief Justice.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 26, 2015, 04:47:57 pm
I considered naming the western Region after Warren, but decided not to due to his support for Japanese Internment during WWII. Ellsworth and Vinson are, frankly, no-names, and I can think of many more deserving figures to name the Northeast and South after. Who wants to live in a Region named "Vinson", anyway?

I picked Franklin, Jefferson, and Fremont because I felt they embodied the best qualities of Atlasian democracy: Franklin the ingenuity and philanthropy that has driven Atlasian society; Jefferson the idealism of the Revolution; and Fremont the rugged individualism of the pioneers. I can understand replacing Jefferson with another Southerner who embodies the same egalitarian principles minus the stain of racism, but we need to be careful not to over-think this. My goal with this amendment was to reference Atlasia's origins and to avoid bland names like "the West" and "the North," not to define every aspect of Atlasia's past, present, and future.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 26, 2015, 05:02:46 pm
Two things:
1. I don't think it is necessary to say "the first region, the second region, etc."
2. Naming regions after any sort of figure is confusing and weird. Just stick with directions - north, south and west. If we start naming after people we're going to have the Airport Renaming Act all over again...


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 26, 2015, 05:42:27 pm
There are many good names that could be used for the regions, and for many of these names, there could be some controversial aspects to their careers.  Being a slave owner is no better than supporting internment camps though.  Had I known, or remembered, that aspect about Warren, internment camps, I would not have suggested him.  

The names I put forward were merely suggestions, but I really don't want my region nor any other region named Gustaf or Demrepdan either.

I like the names Franklin and Fremont, and we should probably approve them as a convention, but I really think we should come up with something besides Jefferson for the south.

The problem is that so many prominent individuals in the early history of America were slave owners.

Suggestion, Rayburn, after Congressman Sam Rayburn from Texas, the longest serving Speaker of the U.S. H/R, known for his honesty, integrity, ability, who had the respect of the entire House, as well as much of the nation.

That is, if we even decide to name the regions after public figures at all.

So, we simply might end up with North, South, West anyway.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 26, 2015, 05:54:40 pm
I'm okay with "Rayburn."


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 26, 2015, 06:07:34 pm
Here is my map

()

Puerto Rico would be added to either the Northeast or the Southern/Pacific Region.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 26, 2015, 06:15:46 pm
Honestly, I don't think that proposal will prove stable in the long term. It is based on the assumption that the Northeast will continue to account for the vast majority of activity long into perpetuity, which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, putting Washington in the same Region as South Carolina makes absolutely no sense: the two have nothing in common geographically, culturally, or historically.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 26, 2015, 06:19:54 pm
Classic Conservative, do you know approximately how many members would be in each region for this map?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clark Kent on October 26, 2015, 06:27:39 pm
I'm not proposing anything as radically different as what Classic Conservative is for the regions, but I would like to see ~6 states in different regions:

Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia: South=>Northeast
Minnesota and Iowa: West=>Northeast
Oklahoma: South=>West


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 26, 2015, 07:05:36 pm
Honestly, I don't think that proposal will prove stable in the long term. It is based on the assumption that the Northeast will continue to account for the vast majority of activity long into perpetuity, which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, putting Washington in the same Region as South Carolina makes absolutely no sense: the two have nothing in common geographically, culturally, or historically.

Or putting Indiana in with New York as Indiana has nothing in common geographically or culturally. I hereby object to any and all maps that put Indiana in a Northeastern region. It's disappointing that this body rejected maintaining 5 regions.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 26, 2015, 07:17:56 pm
Honestly, I don't think that proposal will prove stable in the long term. It is based on the assumption that the Northeast will continue to account for the vast majority of activity long into perpetuity, which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, putting Washington in the same Region as South Carolina makes absolutely no sense: the two have nothing in common geographically, culturally, or historically.

Or putting Indiana in with New York as Indiana has nothing in common geographically or culturally. I hereby object to any and all maps that put Indiana in a Northeastern region. It's disappointing that this body rejected maintaining 5 regions.

Indiana and New York are both Northern states that fought for the Union during the Civil War, border the Great Lakes, have sizable German-American communities, and were once home to the Algonquian Indian culture. The two states are, by far, a much better fit than Washington and South Carolina.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 26, 2015, 07:18:43 pm
This would be my map proposal.
()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 26, 2015, 09:05:38 pm
Oh, for the love of fycking God.

This is exactly why we did CARCA in the first place - so everybody had a chance to weigh in on the concept of boundary lines. We did it - in 2013 AND in 2015 - and everybody in the game had an ability to weigh in on that map (if they chose not to participate, then tough titty!). We did it because we knew everybody and their mother would be saying "this is my map" and, well, rabble rabble rabble! The process produced a superior outcome with respect to balancing the desires and wishes of everyone involved, who came from a wide array of backgrounds. It won. Twice. Obviously that has to say something.

Now with regards to naming the regions: why? Just specify the boundaries of the regions in the Constitution and allow each region to name itself. Maybe even provide a framework (as in, names can come from the following places/types of people) to prevent absolutely asinine choices. Otherwise, we'll be objecting over "this guy was a slave-holder", "that specific regional moniker doesn't fit with this one state" or "this guy was a shitty Atlasian" for the next 10 pages.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 26, 2015, 09:23:01 pm
()

I agree.  This must be the only map pick, if it is the one previously agreed upon during the boundary process deliberations. 

As to names, we cannot leave it to the regions.  That would simply lead to some off the wall, ridiculous selections.

The names must be decided upon in this convention.

A possibility as suggested, Franklin (for the north), Rayburn (for the south), Fremont (for the west).

Or simply The North Region, The South Region, The West Region. 


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 26, 2015, 10:16:30 pm
For the record, this was the CARCA map winner from 2013 and from 2015. I'm not inherently against MN & IA being in the red region due to the likely population difference between red and blue, but the problem becomes one in which if we open up small changes here and there, then everybody wants to start flipping this state and that state, and so forth. I think there is a legitimate argument with respect to flipping those two states - a means to further ensure population balance naturally - but I do not think that any other considerations should be made along those or any other lines. I also tend to think that if we implement the regional legislative controls (if a region becomes too small or too big, then its legislative seats shrink) that the population between regions will naturally equalize a bit more.

If we could all agree that that particular flip needs to occur but would then proceed to honor the multiple verdicts given on these maps by the people, then that would be acceptable. Otherwise, it just devolves into a situation where we're debating completely re-doing boundaries or flipping a dozen states back and forth, and that will take ages and leave many people very upset (as opposed to everyone being just a tiny bit upset).



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 26, 2015, 10:30:40 pm
If this is the map chosen in the selection process, there is no need to flip any states.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 26, 2015, 11:14:34 pm
Honestly, I don't think that proposal will prove stable in the long term. It is based on the assumption that the Northeast will continue to account for the vast majority of activity long into perpetuity, which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, putting Washington in the same Region as South Carolina makes absolutely no sense: the two have nothing in common geographically, culturally, or historically.

Or putting Indiana in with New York as Indiana has nothing in common geographically or culturally. I hereby object to any and all maps that put Indiana in a Northeastern region. It's disappointing that this body rejected maintaining 5 regions.

Indiana and New York are both Northern states that fought for the Union during the Civil War, border the Great Lakes, have sizable German-American communities, and were once home to the Algonquian Indian culture. The two states are, by far, a much better fit than Washington and South Carolina.

But also many Hoosiers had sympathy with the South during the Civil War. My own (Anglo/German/Native American) family included.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 26, 2015, 11:30:36 pm
Honestly, I don't think that proposal will prove stable in the long term. It is based on the assumption that the Northeast will continue to account for the vast majority of activity long into perpetuity, which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, putting Washington in the same Region as South Carolina makes absolutely no sense: the two have nothing in common geographically, culturally, or historically.

Or putting Indiana in with New York as Indiana has nothing in common geographically or culturally. I hereby object to any and all maps that put Indiana in a Northeastern region. It's disappointing that this body rejected maintaining 5 regions.

Indiana and New York are both Northern states that fought for the Union during the Civil War, border the Great Lakes, have sizable German-American communities, and were once home to the Algonquian Indian culture. The two states are, by far, a much better fit than Washington and South Carolina.

But also many Hoosiers had sympathy with the South during the Civil War. My own (Anglo/German/Native American) family included.
That hardly makes Indiana a Southern state, anymore than the fact that east Tennessee had large pro-Union pockets makes it a Northern state. Historically and geographically, Indiana has been part of the North, and while it's true that there are some grey areas, we have to draw the line somewhere.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Leinad on October 27, 2015, 01:13:35 am
I object considering the map endorsed by the convention of regional consolidation isn't this map.

Did anyone post the popularly selected one from a few months ago? I think that's our best choice going forward.

I will amend my amendment to put MN and IA in Franklin (the North), which is the only difference between my proposal and the CARCA map.

But why?

Seriously, why on earth would we move Minnesota and Iowa into a different region (they're Midwest now, and most of the other Midwestern states are heading to the new Western region) especially when that new region (Northeast) is already the one that accounts for the most activity (which will be increased when you throw in the new states)?

It's preposterous!

Yes, I know, it's what CARCA said, but I objected to it then, and I received no good reason for why it's that way--except that in the last CARCA people complained (which is a stupid reason).

Give me a good reason why Minnesota and Iowa need to be in the Northeast and I'll gladly shut up. Until then I'm opposed to it--we're here to make the best map for Atlasia, not just parrot the CARCA map, and I'm convinced that those aren't the same thing.

The CARCA map is mostly fine, I'm just opposed to the Minnesota/Iowa bit. Truman's first map was probably the best we can get--I think we should go with that. Anyone else agree? (Or at least have a good enough reason why I'm crazy and need to shut up?)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 27, 2015, 01:30:52 am
I agree with Adam on both issues. One the Carca should be the basis. We can deal with some minor shifts like the IA/MN one obviously, but we should operate from that as the starting point and make as few changes as possible. If we get too far into the weeds on state shifts, it will destroy any hope of agreeing to a constitution, much less ratifying it.


I also fully agree that the names should be decided by the region's themselves if they ae going to anything. The Constitution should use directions, not numbers and aside from that it should be up to the region. The South has changed its name three times since I joined this game (Southern, Dirty South, Imperial Dominion of the South and now just South). They are perfectly capable of making that choice themselves.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 27, 2015, 08:58:58 am
The committee was formed for a reason. Please let's not waste time on debating the map. I don't care if someone individually disagrees with it. We can't all get what we want. The map produced by the committee is the Will of The People and it should be the one we chose.

I find it ironic that some people who used The People to justify their support for secession are now going against Their choice in maps because they personally disagree with it. Yes, I can be sassy too.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 27, 2015, 08:59:37 am
Let's move with Truman's amendment.
A 48-hours vote is now open. Please vote.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The first Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The second Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Jefferson."
iv. The third Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 27, 2015, 09:40:16 am
Aye, but I will propose an amendment adopting the map endorsed by the will of the people later.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 27, 2015, 09:44:57 am
Aye.

I agree with Windjammer. The only difference between this map and the CARCA's map is the position of Minnesota and Iowa. We can change that with another amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 27, 2015, 10:16:27 am
Aye

Honestly, if we can just adopt this map and move on, I'd be perfectly fine with that - as I outlined above, this might (from a sheer population mechanics standpoint) be a better overall solution if we can just get some broad agreement on it. I'd just hate to spend 10 pages debating individual states. The fact is that several people raised a fuss over IA/MN being in either region in the initial CARCA debates (I remember Snowguy flipped out about MN being with the Pacific over the population argument, and threatened to derail the process) but it is a specific area that makes next to no sense being in either region.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 27, 2015, 10:46:34 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 27, 2015, 10:56:10 am
AYE!

Aye, but I will propose an amendment adopting the map endorsed by the will of the people later.

I agree with Windjammer. The only difference between this map and the CARCA's map is the position of Minnesota and Iowa. We can change that with another amendment.

Actually, I amended my amendment to put MN and IA in the Northern Region yesterday, after Windjammer and others objected to its being in the West. The text we are now voting on is therefore identical to the CARCA map.

I will amend my amendment to put MN and IA in Franklin (the North), which is the only difference between my proposal and the CARCA map.

Let's move with Truman's amendment.
A 48-hours vote is now open. Please vote.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The first Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The second Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Jefferson."
iv. The third Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

()

Sorry for the confusion.





Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 27, 2015, 10:58:08 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 27, 2015, 11:11:19 am
Nay

As I have tried to explain to this convention, we should not have a region named after a major slave holder, "Jefferson".

Personally, I think this is insulting to the people of the south to have their region named after a major slave holder.

Truman was OK with the suggestion of "Rayburn" so I don't know why his proposal doesn't reflect that.

And furthermore, why should the regions have the names of people anyway?

What's wrong with the non controversial, no problem to understand names of The North Region, The South Region, The West Region?

Why complicate things with particular names of individuals?  

I will propose an amendment to move Minnesota and Iowa to the West Region, if that will keep everyone happy, and it makes sense to have Minnesota and Iowa in the West Region.

I will also propose an amendment using the names The North Region, The South Region, The West Region.

Either that, or an amendment changing "Jefferson" to "Rayburn".

No region should have to be named after a major slave holder.  It sends the wrong message.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 27, 2015, 11:20:57 am
I had intended to replace "Jefferson" with "Rayburn" once this amendment was adopted. If we'd rather let the Regions name themselves, that's fine by me, but I'd rather not enshrine such bland names as "the North" and "the West" in the Constitution. It's a stylistic point, and I won't protest if that's what the Convention wants to do, but I personally would prefer a more original approach.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 27, 2015, 11:27:09 am
I had intended to replace "Jefferson" with "Rayburn" once this amendment was adopted. If we'd rather let the Regions name themselves, that's fine by me, but I'd rather not enshrine such bland names as "the North" and "the West" in the Constitution. It's a stylistic point, and I won't protest if that's what the Convention wants to do, but I personally would prefer a more original approach.

OK, sounds good.  Replace "Jefferson" with "Rayburn" so each region has a distinctive name.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 27, 2015, 03:50:31 pm
Nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: bore on October 27, 2015, 06:05:27 pm
Aye



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 27, 2015, 07:49:04 pm
Don't agree with everything like Delaware but reluctant AYE.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: NeverAgain on October 27, 2015, 08:01:49 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: VPH on October 27, 2015, 09:03:52 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 27, 2015, 09:04:04 pm
NayVoting Aye because I don't want to be an obstructionist, but I have reservations that are listed below...

Considering the entire premise of this amendment is determining where the regions are going and what they will be named, it doesn't make sense to be adopting this if you just plan on making amendments down the road.

For me, having Kansas in the Pacific is a bit of a non-starter in terms of the map (though it won't affect my final vote on the constitution). While I understand the argument geographically, when you consider that over 80% of the population is on the east and south side of the state, it would be absolutely terrible for the state if it were put in a separate region from Oklahoma and Kansas. I understand it may be small to some, but as the only person in here that is actually from the state, I know that if this were adopted in reality, well, it wouldn't be adopted in reality, because people would point out what a terrible decision it would be. I understand that some don't think it is a big issue, but for practically reasons, it would undoubtedly hurt the citizens in the state that I come from.

Additionally, as I said before, states shouldn't be named after historical figures - think how confusing it will be to new members when we say "you're in the Fremont region" - especially those who aren't from America! Keep it simple - North, Southeast (IDS), and West.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 27, 2015, 09:24:53 pm
Introducing this amendment first, then hope to follow up with another that will discuss regional names, because I don't think we've came to a full consensus on that yet.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The firstOne Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The secondOne Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Jefferson."
iv. The thirdOne Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

()

There are two changes here:
1. I don't like the idea of numbering the regions - I think it sends somewhat of a message that one region is being put over another. This is a concern I raised before but was not addressed, so if someone comes up with a  strong argument why "first, second,third" is better than how I worded it, I'll entertain it.
2. Moving Kansas to the South. I understand that there is a desire to try and keep the number of regions balanced, but 1)I don't think it looks better or difference on the prettiness scale, which a lot of people are going off of, and 2) most importantly, considering the population centers and economics of each state, it would be terrible to separate Kansas from Oklahoma and Missouri. I understand that Kansas is generally considered a part of the "Great Plains", which includes the Dakotas and Nebraska, but we are MUCH close to Missouri and Oklahoma in reality. Kansas has historically had low populations of registered Atlasians and with re-registering likely taking place, doing this won't have any sort of negative effect on the game. It just makes more sense economically, and I hope folks will understand that. This puts the South ahead 18-16-16, rather than 17-17-16, so ultimately they remain pretty even. I wish I had been involved more in CARCA and I would have pointed this out then - I know it is something I've mentioned before.

I don't mean to bog the process down, and as I see both of these as uncontroversial, I ask that there are no objections and we can proceed to discussing the naming of the regions and other relevant topics. If someone comes up with a valid reason for having "first, second, third," I will friendly that portion out of the amendment. Thanks. :)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Leinad on October 27, 2015, 09:45:20 pm
Aye on Truman's original, reluctant aye on the new one considering we can amend it.

Honestly, this mindset that Minnesota and Iowa MUST be in the region that's already going to be the most active, and I'm some sort of totalitarian despot for saying otherwise is mind-numbingly baffling.

the Carca should be the basis. We can deal with some minor shifts like the IA/MN one obviously, but we should operate from that as the starting point and make as few changes as possible. If we get too far into the weeds on state shifts, it will destroy any hope of agreeing to a constitution, much less ratifying it.

Of course, I completely agree with that. But the Minnesota/Iowa stuff, the only change I'd make, is blatantly obvious, is it not? I still have never been given any substantive reasoning why Minnesota and Iowa need to be in the North. Duke, Adam, and everyone else: give me a good reason and maybe I'll change my mind. That's all I'm asking for. I'm not a trouble-maker, I just want to make sure we get this right.

The committee was formed for a reason. Please let's not waste time on debating the map. I don't care if someone individually disagrees with it. We can't all get what we want. The map produced by the committee is the Will of The People and it should be the one we chose.

I find it ironic that some people who used The People to justify their support for secession are now going against Their choice in maps because they personally disagree with it. Yes, I can be sassy too.

That's not how it works, debate is a good thing. Look at gay marriage--in many states The People's Will was to not allow same-sex marriage, but people in favor of it didn't give up because of that. The debate went on, as it should, and now the right of equality under the law is recognized.

My point is that if someone is right, and I think I am here (blind squirrel, etc.), they should continue debate in order to influence The People to see things more clearly.

Trying to silence contrary opinion and healthy debate isn't democracy, it's literally the opposite of democracy.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 27, 2015, 10:16:35 pm
     Aye, so we can go somewhere with this.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 27, 2015, 10:24:59 pm
No-one is trying to stifle debate, Leinad. The point is that we've already had this debate, twice if you count the original CARCA, and spending four weeks debating every possible combination of states is a waste of time. Most of the people who participated in the CARCA are now delegates to this Convention (Windjammer, myself, VPH, Never Again, yourself, Duke, Griffin, etc.), so it's not like this is a radically different group of people. Yes, debate is a good thing, but endlessly arguing over minor details that, in the long run, will have virtually no effect on the overall health of the game is counterproductive. One only has to read through the threads from the last Convention held on this board to see what can happen when the drafting process is allowed to be brought to a halt by a few minor objections.

My greatest fear for this Convention is that we will become so bogged down in debating minor details and legalistic niceties that we will loose sight of our true goal: building a new, better game for all to enjoy. The fact that we frittered away three weeks repeatedly debating and voting on identical amendments to legalize/outlaw secession only deepens my conviction that decentralization is the greatest challenge we face as a deliberative body. Whether Minnesota is in the North or the West is, in the end, entirely irrelevant. I'm not unalterably opposed to transferring MN and IA to the West, but I fear that doing so will open the door to successive amendments, and before long we will have 25 different map proposals bogging down debate for a month.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Leinad on October 27, 2015, 11:37:25 pm
Yeah, we had this debate, I understand that, but not really to a satisfying conclusion. No one has given me a good reason why Minnesota and Iowa should be in the Northeast. I mean, so far the best case in favor of that is "because I said so" (or, rather, because the CARCA in 2013 said so), while I've tried to provide clear reasoning for my arguments.

Maybe I'm being cynical by taking comments by Duke and others as trying to stifle debate. But I think it kind of says something when "we've already discussed this" is literally the only defense for a position. Maybe it's not the most important thing, but I think it probably matters some, and it's just such an obvious solution--keep Minnesota and Iowa with the majority of the current Midwestern states in the new West. It's a no-brainer to me.

You seem to think it will open a Pandora's Box of pedantic state allocation questions, Truman, but I don't think that's the case. Every single one of those other questions (Kansas, Indiana, Delaware, whatever) has a clear argument on either side. There's reasons to have it as the map does, without changing it further. That's why the CARCA map is mostly good--it gets it about 48 out of 50 either right or at least not obviously wrong. But there's no defense (at least, none stated) for the location of Minnesota and Iowa. That's the difference. It's the only obvious error in the map, everything else is far more subjective.

Sure, maybe other people will bring up pedantic amendments to move states around. But I'm not trying to do anything but move those two states, and even if this does happen as you predict, how bad would that really be? I mean, wouldn't you hate it if you were convinced that something was wrong yet easily fixable, but weren't able to change it because the powers that be value swiftness as more important than quality?

We're all legally elected/selected delegates of the Constitutional Convention. We all have the mandate to debate things and try to make the new Atlasia the best that it can be, however we think that can be done; not to see how quickly we can speed through a convention. If someone has an idea to make Atlasia better, why can't they try it out? In fact, we could easily get to a point where it's the "Leave Well Enough Alone" Caucus that's slowing everything down by complaining about how many amendments we're voting on. I know that the complaints of that have annoyed me more than the amendments themselves so far.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 28, 2015, 12:21:58 am
The trouble is, Leinad, that frivolous amendments - and lets be clear, changing the allegiance of two states will have no practical effect on this game - have the potential to bog down the Convention for weeks on end, thus preventing us from dealing with the really important issues like devolution, the size and structure of the national legislature, and a legislative reboot. I am all in favor of spending the necessary time to get this right, but spending so much time debating unimportant details is not a good use of the Atlasian people's time. Every day we delay the adoption of the new Constitution, the situation in Atlasia worsens - look what has happened to the Pacific in the weeks since this Convention began - and the more likely it becomes that people will loose hope and leave.

Furthermore, I'm yet to hear a convincing argument as to why MN and IA should be in the West. You say that most of the current Midwest is being incorporated into the new Western Region (which is true), but make no argument as to why this should continue to be the case. We are trying to build a new Regional system, not tweak the existing one, and thus allocating states based on their current distribution makes little sense.

Why, then, should MN and IA remain in the North? Because having MN and IA in the Northeast is the most geographically balanced, aesthetically pleasing, and (judging by the fact that the current proposal was endorsed TWICE by a convention of active citizens) popular proposal on the table; because in the long term, transferring those states to the West will have no tangible effect on the game; and because historically, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the culture and politics of Wisconsin than of the Dakotas. Ultimately, this isn't an important issue, and as such I will not object to an amendment putting MN and IA in the West, but its not as if the current map is completely arbitrary whereas your proposal is unquestionably correct.

Towards the end of your post, you pose an important question: wouldn't I hate it if the Convention made what I viewed as an incorrect decision and there was nothing I could do to change it. Doubtlessly, I would; however, this Convention is not about me or my views, nor is it about the individual opinions of anyone in this chamber. Our sole, unalterable purpose is to enact the will of the Atlasian people. Some of us are going to have problems with that will - I myself am disappointed that we have chosen to legalize secession - but this is irrelevant. Objection should always be a last resort, employed when - and only when - a proposal threatens to damage the stability of our new Constitution. When I stood aside for Cris in the P.O. election, it was not because I didn't think I could do the job, but because I knew that Cris could do it just as well, and I did not see a reason to further divide the Convention when we would get a good result either way.

I must say though, Leinad, that I appreciate you laying out your position so respectfully and in such detail, rather than resorting to cries of "LOL you fascist" as have others in this chamber. We may differ in our approach to this monumental task, but it's refreshing to see someone taking this seriously for once, rather than using their office as a soapbox from which to lambast their opponents.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 28, 2015, 02:20:45 am
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 28, 2015, 06:13:07 am
Leinad, you participated to The Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia, here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=216567.0
The goal of this convention was to select a map. You proposed your map, everyone proposed their maps, and in the end a map was selected.

There is no justification to give you about why a state should be in this region and not in an another region, a majority of the people chose this map.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: ilikeverin on October 28, 2015, 09:21:00 am
because historically, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the culture and politics of Wisconsin than of the Dakotas.

No; in Atlasian history, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the rest of the Midwestern region, both culturally and politically.

I'm not sure why the CARCA is being considered a reliable source of information about what Atlasians would prefer out of a three-region system.  Presumably, the only people who participated were people in support of regional consolidation; those of us who opposed regional consolidation had no reason to support a process whose end goal was something we disagreed with.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clark Kent on October 28, 2015, 10:24:45 am
AYE on Truman's amendment, NAY on tmthforu94's.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 28, 2015, 10:28:19 am
The CARCA was a massive undertaking and debate. If someone didn't feel the need to participate in it that is their own choice. It's not fair to simply dismiss it now because someone wasn't a participant in it. It's bigger than one or two people.

I'm open to listening to minor changes like moving Minnesota to the Midwest or something like that, because I do agree it's not a northern state, but the CARCA exists so this process would be streamlined, not hung up for weeks debating where each state should go. We'll never finish this convention if we start doing that.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: VPH on October 28, 2015, 04:39:03 pm
Aye on tmthforu94's amendment


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 28, 2015, 05:36:21 pm

I don't think this has been brought to a vote yet.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 28, 2015, 07:02:14 pm
Nay,

Indiana with the Northeast doesn't fly with me one bit. My apologies to Senator Truman, however right you may be on some of the historical aspects we discussed earlier (sizable German-Amarican populations etc,) look at the reality that if you visit most towns south of Rochester, (Bloomington and Indianapolis as the possible exceptions) it's like you're in the south.

The biggest reason I am firmly against consolidation, besides protecting the cultural distinctiveness of my home state, I believe this will stifle new voices that will come with ideas that many here will not dare consider because of the years many of us have played the game.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 28, 2015, 09:04:46 pm
Can someone explain which amendments we're voting on? I thought I voted on Truman's amendment but it seems there are two amendments and because we've been going back and forth for pages over individual states, I can't track down what the hell else we're voting on right now.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 28, 2015, 09:11:28 pm
If we put Kansas into the South, then MN/IA are going to have to go in the western region. We risk de-populating the western region in natural terms by too much. I think that things will even out to a degree in terms of population if a legislative seat regulation remains in the provision, but we can't imbalance them naturally by too much.

When you take MN, IA & KS out of the western region, it is left with 28 people currently (out of 144). That's less than 20% of the game.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 28, 2015, 09:13:48 pm
because historically, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the culture and politics of Wisconsin than of the Dakotas.

No; in Atlasian history, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the rest of the Midwestern region, both culturally and politically.

I'm not sure why the CARCA is being considered a reliable source of information about what Atlasians would prefer out of a three-region system.  Presumably, the only people who participated were people in support of regional consolidation; those of us who opposed regional consolidation had no reason to support a process whose end goal was something we disagreed with.

Well, that was a major misjudgment on your part, now wasn't it? The process was open to everyone and the bulk of active people in 2013 and in 2015 participated, with roughly 30 people in total competing. It is a certainly a better reflection and reliable source of information about what Atlasians would prefer than anything else anybody else can offer at this point.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 28, 2015, 09:34:56 pm
Can someone explain which amendments we're voting on? I thought I voted on Truman's amendment but it seems there are two amendments and because we've been going back and forth for pages over individual states, I can't track down what the hell else we're voting on right now.

We're still voting on my amendment.

If we put Kansas into the South, then MN/IA are going to have to go in the western region. We risk de-populating the western region in natural terms by too much. I think that things will even out to a degree in terms of population if a legislative seat regulation remains in the provision, but we can't imbalance them naturally by too much.

When you take MN, IA & KS out of the western region, it is left with 28 people currently (out of 144). That's less than 20% of the game.

I'm okay with putting KS in the South and MN and IA in the West. Both are sensible changes with concrete arguments behind them, so if that's what it takes to get a majority on board, I'm all for it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 28, 2015, 09:57:08 pm
It's hard to tell with all the competing proposals flying around, but I think these are the suggestions that have been made in regards to the Regional map:

1. Adopt CARCA as is (Truman)
2. Adopt CARCA, but move MN and IA from the North to the West (Leinad)
3. Adopt CARCA, but move KS to the South (Tmth)
4. Adopt a new map that puts Indiana in the South (JCL)
5. Adopt a new map divided into Eastern, Central, and Western Regions (Bmotley)

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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 29, 2015, 02:52:30 pm
The Truman's amendment has been adopted.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 29, 2015, 02:53:53 pm
Motion to end the debates on the adopted map.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on October 29, 2015, 02:54:08 pm
Now, it's time for Tmthforu's amendment. Delegates have 24 hours to object.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The firstOne Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The secondOne Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Jefferson."
iv. The thirdOne Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 29, 2015, 03:22:05 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 29, 2015, 03:27:10 pm
I assume you are objecting to it, right?

Motion to end the debates on the adopted map.


It's not provided by ConCon rules.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 29, 2015, 03:43:24 pm
I'm objecting.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 29, 2015, 04:26:27 pm
There are two changes here:
1. I don't like the idea of numbering the regions - I think it sends somewhat of a message that one region is being put over another. This is a concern I raised before but was not addressed, so if someone comes up with a  strong argument why "first, second,third" is better than how I worded it, I'll entertain it.
2. Moving Kansas to the South. I understand that there is a desire to try and keep the number of regions balanced, but 1)I don't think it looks better or difference on the prettiness scale, which a lot of people are going off of, and 2) most importantly, considering the population centers and economics of each state, it would be terrible to separate Kansas from Oklahoma and Missouri. I understand that Kansas is generally considered a part of the "Great Plains", which includes the Dakotas and Nebraska, but we are MUCH close to Missouri and Oklahoma in reality. Kansas has historically had low populations of registered Atlasians and with re-registering likely taking place, doing this won't have any sort of negative effect on the game. It just makes more sense economically, and I hope folks will understand that. This puts the South ahead 18-16-16, rather than 17-17-16, so ultimately they remain pretty even. I wish I had been involved more in CARCA and I would have pointed this out then - I know it is something I've mentioned before.

Now, the only argument I've heard on this is from Griffin, who doesn't want to make the population in the Pacific smaller. I would remind everyone that to my knowledge, we have two folks in the state of Kansas, I'm the only one who is there because of geographic reasons, and I haven't lived here forever. Considering the likelihood of folks moving around with a consolidation of regions (most people in this game don't live in here where they live IRL), I would encourage individuals to dismiss that argument for THIS amendment.

Additionally, I have heard from several delegates that they are opposing this SIMPLY because it wasn't part of the CARCA map. For the record, I was not a member of Atlasia during that discussion, other delegates weren't involved either. It is unfair to shut myself and others out of the process for being part of a non-binding debate and decision several months ago.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 29, 2015, 04:55:44 pm
I'm fine moving Kansas so long as this doesn't open the floodgates for everyone and their brother to request to move their state.

Kansas is much more southern than northern or coastal elitist.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 29, 2015, 05:03:20 pm
I'm fine moving Kansas so long as this doesn't open the floodgates for everyone and their brother to request to move their state.

Kansas is much more southern than northern or coastal elitist.
If you agree to adopt a change, then we will have to consider all the other changes because that would be unfair to the others, don't you think.

The CARCA was adopted less than 2 months ago. Maybe you did have good reasons for leaving this game and I hope nothing wrong happened to you tmthforu, but I don't want to reopen the debates about the map. CARCA's goal was to speed the process. If we start hearing all the potential changes, the constitutional convention will last too much time.

And your argument doesn't make sense. That would be like restarting a presidential election everytime a new user registers because that would be unfair to him by not doing that, because he wouldn't have been involved in the process.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 29, 2015, 06:11:59 pm
My argument makes complete sense - it amazes me how time and time again, individuals at this convention are trying to rush things through and stifle debate.

Your argument is the one that doesn't make sense - comparing this to a presidential election is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have a question for you, Windjammer, and others who are opposed to any changes because of CARCA: Was CARCA binding?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 29, 2015, 07:11:01 pm
As I have said previously, I have no problem with putting Kansas in the South. I also think the grammatical changes made (removing "first," "second," and "third") are a good idea, and as such I will support this amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on October 29, 2015, 10:15:04 pm
I will support the amendment with the following provision:

iii.  ..........and shall be styled "Jefferson."  "Rayburn."

Jefferson was a slave holder.

Also, we should make for provision for Minnesota and Iowa to be moved to the west region if this is the consensus. 


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 30, 2015, 12:24:31 am
I withdrew my amendment for the time being with the expectation of another amendment being introduced that will alleviate my concerns.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 30, 2015, 12:45:16 am
I offer the following amendment:

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

()


Honestly, I think this is a good compromise. With KS in the South and MN/IA in the West, we end up with an attractive, balanced map that still reflects the bulk of the CARCA proposal. I also replaced "first," "second," and "third" with "Northern," "Southern," and "Western," so as to avoid 'ranking' the Regions and changed the name of the Southern Region to Rayburn, which removes any seeming endorsement of slavery. It may not be exactly what the CARCA hardliners wanted, but it's a good map that we should all be able to get on board with.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 30, 2015, 12:54:41 am
I am fine with the map and removing the numbering system, but I prefer the regions be able to select their own names.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 30, 2015, 01:07:25 am
I think we should give the Western Region a name that is more appropriate for its founding and culture. Perhaps "Cortés"? Also, the Southern name could be a lot better. Alexander Hamilton was from the West Indies...that's Southern enough, right? :D


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 30, 2015, 01:13:51 am
Honestly I think we should just name the regions "Hamilton", "Griffin" and "Wolfen" since they represent three historic Atlasian figures and all have the same ending sound; none of the other historic figures knew how to pick proper names so they get excluded.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 30, 2015, 07:35:27 am
My argument makes complete sense - it amazes me how time and time again, individuals at this convention are trying to rush things through and stifle debate.

Your argument is the one that doesn't make sense - comparing this to a presidential election is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have a question for you, Windjammer, and others who are opposed to any changes because of CARCA: Was CARCA binding?
Sometimes it can be useful to compare apples and oranges by the way, and your argument still doesn't make no sense. CARCA was made in order to speed the process, not my fault if you chose to leave the game.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 30, 2015, 07:44:17 am
And I oppose Truman's amendment. It wasn't the map decided by thr CARCA.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 30, 2015, 08:45:33 am
A 48-hours on Truman's amendment is now open. Please vote.

Quote
ARTICLE IV
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 30, 2015, 08:48:20 am
I really don't understand why this CARCA map is untouchable for many.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: bore on October 30, 2015, 08:49:11 am
I don't know exactly what the ConCon rules are, but presumably like the senate rules there is a way for the presiding officer to suspend them if neccessary.

Therefore, I motion to just suspend all amendments in the queue, have 48 hours or something for everyone to propose their own maps and names for the regions and then have an IRV vote on that.



When it comes to region names I don't think the let the regions decide idea is the right one because they'll have the vote to decide on the name after the constitutions adoption leading to a lot of confusion about what each regions name is. Why don't we name them, and if they want to change their name they can petition the federal government in some way?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 30, 2015, 08:55:08 am
Nay



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 30, 2015, 09:03:31 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 30, 2015, 09:30:11 am
I don't like the names. I'm not sure how I'll vote yet.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: MadmanMotley on October 30, 2015, 09:47:15 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 30, 2015, 09:52:04 am
Aye.

Vote for the map here, guys. We can go back and decide on names. I don't support these names, either.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 30, 2015, 01:32:01 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on October 30, 2015, 03:13:15 pm
     Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on October 30, 2015, 03:22:04 pm
Aye.

There are more important things to be discussed at this point. This map is an excellent compromise.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Classic Conservative on October 30, 2015, 04:11:09 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on October 30, 2015, 04:24:55 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on October 30, 2015, 05:28:56 pm
AYE.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 30, 2015, 06:22:31 pm
Aye, and so help me God, I will c**nt-punt anybody else who tries to move states around on this.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on October 30, 2015, 08:53:06 pm
Aye, and so help me God, I will c**nt-punt anybody else who tries to move states around on this.

Aye but I may propose another map.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Leinad on October 30, 2015, 09:22:34 pm
Aye!

Leinad, you participated to The Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia, here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=216567.0
The goal of this convention was to select a map. You proposed your map, everyone proposed their maps, and in the end a map was selected.

There is no justification to give you about why a state should be in this region and not in an another region, a majority of the people chose this map.

First of all, "a majority of the people chose this map" is blatantly untrue: for one thing, it wasn't a "majority," that's not how the voting system worked for CARCA, and for another thing, it wasn't "the people" (as in, the people of Atlasia or people elected by them), it was the people who participated in CARCA. And not everyone did. Some didn't participate in it because they opposed it, for example. Your presidential analogy is off-base because a presidential election is A) binding/official and B) ideologically neutral.

So much has changed since then. At that point the Constitutional Convention wasn't a reality, South America was still in it's early stages, and public opinion on consolidation was radically different. Please stop acting like CARCA is some Mandate from God and the universe will blow up if we dare stray from it.

Legitimately elected/selected delegates have the right to float around ideas for us to vote on. That's the idea of the convention, really.

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.

I completely agree with this suggestion. Although, fortunately, your map seems to be doing well.

Furthermore, I'm yet to hear a convincing argument as to why MN and IA should be in the West. You say that most of the current Midwest is being incorporated into the new Western Region (which is true), but make no argument as to why this should continue to be the case.

Maybe I forgot to mention it. I think I said it somewhere, but anyway, here it is: right now, the Northeast has many more times the activity as the West or Midwest--and I'd wager more than both of those regions combined. Especially when we add much of the Mideast to it. I understand that the regions change in activity, but I'd presume it will be this way for at least the near future.

And while I don't think the status quo carries much weight, I'd put much more stock in that than CARCA.

Quote
Towards the end of your post, you pose an important question: wouldn't I hate it if the Convention made what I viewed as an incorrect decision and there was nothing I could do to change it. Doubtlessly, I would; however, this Convention is not about me or my views, nor is it about the individual opinions of anyone in this chamber. Our sole, unalterable purpose is to enact the will of the Atlasian people. Some of us are going to have problems with that will - I myself am disappointed that we have chosen to legalize secession - but this is irrelevant. Objection should always be a last resort, employed when - and only when - a proposal threatens to damage the stability of our new Constitution. When I stood aside for Cris in the P.O. election, it was not because I didn't think I could do the job, but because I knew that Cris could do it just as well, and I did not see a reason to further divide the Convention when we would get a good result either way.

Sure, but as I alluded to with my gay marriage analogy, the will of the people often changes with more information and arguments. And I suppose I could've phrased it better: while a person would be upset if their idea is rejected due to most people genuinely opposing it, it's another level of justified rage entirely if the idea is rejected due to people saying "no, this is going on too long" or "we already settled this with an informal convention a few month ago."

And that's the key--the difference between something not passing due to it being against the will of the people, or something not passing because certain people who think they run the place stifled debate.

Quote
I must say though, Leinad, that I appreciate you laying out your position so respectfully and in such detail, rather than resorting to cries of "LOL you fascist" as have others in this chamber. We may differ in our approach to this monumental task, but it's refreshing to see someone taking this seriously for once, rather than using their office as a soapbox from which to lambast their opponents.

Thanks! The internet has enough people insulting each other already, so I figure it would be overkill for me to add to that mess.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 30, 2015, 09:52:06 pm
My argument makes complete sense - it amazes me how time and time again, individuals at this convention are trying to rush things through and stifle debate.

Your argument is the one that doesn't make sense - comparing this to a presidential election is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have a question for you, Windjammer, and others who are opposed to any changes because of CARCA: Was CARCA binding?
Sometimes it can be useful to compare apples and oranges by the way, and your argument still doesn't make no sense. CARCA was made in order to speed the process, not my fault if you chose to leave the game.
What an undemocratic way to look at things! "Oh, you weren't registered in the game when we talked about maps, so you can't have an opinion." Once again, if CARCA were binding, you would be absolutely correct. But it isn't. It was a group of random people, not determined by any legal document, who came up with a suggestion.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 30, 2015, 10:23:13 pm
My argument makes complete sense - it amazes me how time and time again, individuals at this convention are trying to rush things through and stifle debate.

Your argument is the one that doesn't make sense - comparing this to a presidential election is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have a question for you, Windjammer, and others who are opposed to any changes because of CARCA: Was CARCA binding?
Sometimes it can be useful to compare apples and oranges by the way, and your argument still doesn't make no sense. CARCA was made in order to speed the process, not my fault if you chose to leave the game.
What an undemocratic way to look at things! "Oh, you weren't registered in the game when we talked about maps, so you can't have an opinion." Once again, if CARCA were binding, you would be absolutely correct. But it isn't. It was a group of random people, not determined by any legal document, who came up with a suggestion.

But you specifically were around in 2013 when the first CARCA occurred, you expressed concerns about how the ME might be divided, and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation), which did produce the very same map that was replicated by the process in 2015.



I really don't get how people want to say that this isn't the most crowd-sourced and objectively-supported solution we have at a moment. From the perspective that it was largely two different groups of people spread across two years (who were ideologically diverse, mind you), that tells us that the boundaries are objectively better with regards to making sense to players who have played at different points in history - long-term sensibility, in other words.  

Also, let's look at public opinion on the map in 2013 - which was when 60-65% supported consolidation and 35-40% opposed it. What were the opinions of more than 50 people? (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=181250.0)

()

This was the general public's findings - more than one-third of the registered voters at the time - and overwhelming majorities of those who supported consolidation said "yes, I support this map". Obviously those opposing consolidation wouldn't support the map, so you do the two-way model and can state that 87% of consolidation supporters in 2013 supported CARCA. Do any of the opponents who are opposing it for opposition and choice's sake have a solution ready to go that generates anywhere near that level of support from the public at-large?

Barring the faux outrage by some individuals in this body who are essentially making an argument similar to "I know how to spend my money better than the government!!!" and that it would likely permeate a public dialogue about it now, I think similar results would appear if surveyed today. The fact that it's now actually being formalized would polarize the discussion a bit more, but let's not pretend that anywhere near an informed majority would oppose this map or have something better ready to go that wouldn't require a similar process to CARCA.




Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on October 30, 2015, 10:42:05 pm
2 years is a long time in Atlasia - your memory is certainly better than mine.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: NeverAgain on October 30, 2015, 11:05:18 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on October 31, 2015, 12:33:12 am
and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation),

Bullsh**t!!!


Tmth was overwhelmingly elected as Party Chairman in December 2013 as an aknowledged supporter of Consolidation, to replace another pro-Consolidation Chairman, Maxwell. Duke was nominated in October 2013, running as a pro-Consolidation independent with a Federalist VP, who also supported consolidation.

Of the three Federalist Senators, only one voted against the final FTR amendment, and that was after said single Federalist Nay exerted much effort to assist in structuring a workable process. This same Nay voter than expedited the process to bring the FTR back up after three lame-ass Senators you elected went AWOL and caused it to fail the first time. Of course you weren't here for that because you had pussed out like a err deregistered. :P

The  opposition that killed it at the ratification booth came to ahead in January 2014, by which time Duke had been damaged amongst Conservatives from the perception he was too compromising with TNF. I would also remind you that the first, albeit abortive, challenger to Duke, was pro-consolidation Maxwell.

Consolidation did divide the Party, but there was no effort to lynch pro-consolidation people because they were pro-consolidation and it was certainly not an overwhelming factor whilst CARCA 2013 was underway. It did get lumped onto many unfair critiques that was leveled at Duke and helped to fuel the Reaganfan challenge, in early 2014, not in 2013.

Once again your take on these events is clouded by the simple fact, that, as we painfully learned this summer, there is no substitute for being there. :P


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 31, 2015, 04:33:32 am
On the condition that the current amendment being voted on passes, I offer the following amendment.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states jurisdictions of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Newfoundland & Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, the Bahamas, Cuba, Delaware, the Dominican Republic, Florida, Georgia, Haiti, Jamaica, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Manitoba, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Oceania, Oregon, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Yukon, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

What it does:

  • Adds Oceania, which was forgotten in previous amendments
  • Implements the entirety of Canada as an equally-playable series of provinces within our new game; no need to consult the U.N. since we are building a new time-line from scratch
  • Because the A-CCM had to take into account providing provinces to all 5 regions in order to pass, the eastern provinces of Canada/the map overall looked goofy with Southern Canadian provinces completely separate from the rest of the region. As such, I propose a compromise that provides the Southern region with 5 formerly-sovereign Caribbean entities that would now be incorporated as states all the same. This ensures that all regions are properly represented in the expansion of playable game boundaries.
  • I made promises to several individuals that I would no longer pursue annexation of Mexico or the entirety of North America, and I am standing by both of those promises.
  • Visual representation (Oceania not pictured) (http://imgur.com/PU2paoI.png)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 31, 2015, 04:36:02 am
and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation),

Bullsh**t!!!


Tmth was overwhelmingly elected as Party Chairman in December 2013 as an aknowledged supporter of Consolidation, to replace another pro-Consolidation Chairman, Maxwell. Duke was nominated in October 2013, running as a pro-Consolidation independent with a Federalist VP, who also supported consolidation.

Of the three Federalist Senators, only one voted against the final FTR amendment, and that was after said single Federalist Nay exerted much effort to assist in structuring a workable process. This same Nay voter than expedited the process to bring the FTR back up after three lame-ass Senators you elected went AWOL and caused it to fail the first time. Of course you weren't here for that because you had pussed out like a err deregistered. :P

The  opposition that killed it at the ratification booth came to ahead in January 2014, by which time Duke had been damaged amongst Conservatives from the perception he was too compromising with TNF. I would also remind you that the first, albeit abortive, challenger to Duke, was pro-consolidation Maxwell.

Consolidation did divide the Party, but there was no effort to lynch pro-consolidation people because they were pro-consolidation and it was certainly not an overwhelming factor whilst CARCA 2013 was underway. It did get lumped onto many unfair critiques that was leveled at Duke and helped to fuel the Reaganfan challenge, in early 2014, not in 2013.

Once again your take on these events is clouded by the simple fact, that, as we painfully learned this summer, there is no substitute for being there. :P

All of that occurred after CARCA and after Hagrid more or less had stopped influencing the process by proxy. I was informed by pro-consolidation Federalists during that time that they were facing pressure not to be involved. In addition, I'm sure Federalist Independent President Duke can elaborate on just how much criticism (including a primary challenge) he faced over being pro-consolidation, but he can put it in his own words if he wishes!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on October 31, 2015, 06:35:49 am
Leinad:

Well, you can say as well that not all the people voted for the election of the delegates. The CARCA represented every people that wanted to participate: DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

My argument makes complete sense - it amazes me how time and time again, individuals at this convention are trying to rush things through and stifle debate.

Your argument is the one that doesn't make sense - comparing this to a presidential election is like comparing apples to oranges.

I have a question for you, Windjammer, and others who are opposed to any changes because of CARCA: Was CARCA binding?
Sometimes it can be useful to compare apples and oranges by the way, and your argument still doesn't make no sense. CARCA was made in order to speed the process, not my fault if you chose to leave the game.
What an undemocratic way to look at things! "Oh, you weren't registered in the game when we talked about maps, so you can't have an opinion." Once again, if CARCA were binding, you would be absolutely correct. But it isn't. It was a group of random people, not determined by any legal document, who came up with a suggestion.
This is democratic: I have the right to believe the CARCA map should be adopted because it was chosen by the convention. I

It would be appreciated if you started acting a little more respectful. Some people are trying to have a mature conversation!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Oakvale on October 31, 2015, 07:56:39 am
NAY.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on October 31, 2015, 10:30:56 am
NAY.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on October 31, 2015, 12:36:21 pm
and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation),

Bullsh**t!!!


Tmth was overwhelmingly elected as Party Chairman in December 2013 as an aknowledged supporter of Consolidation, to replace another pro-Consolidation Chairman, Maxwell. Duke was nominated in October 2013, running as a pro-Consolidation independent with a Federalist VP, who also supported consolidation.

Of the three Federalist Senators, only one voted against the final FTR amendment, and that was after said single Federalist Nay exerted much effort to assist in structuring a workable process. This same Nay voter than expedited the process to bring the FTR back up after three lame-ass Senators you elected went AWOL and caused it to fail the first time. Of course you weren't here for that because you had pussed out like a err deregistered. :P

The  opposition that killed it at the ratification booth came to ahead in January 2014, by which time Duke had been damaged amongst Conservatives from the perception he was too compromising with TNF. I would also remind you that the first, albeit abortive, challenger to Duke, was pro-consolidation Maxwell.

Consolidation did divide the Party, but there was no effort to lynch pro-consolidation people because they were pro-consolidation and it was certainly not an overwhelming factor whilst CARCA 2013 was underway. It did get lumped onto many unfair critiques that was leveled at Duke and helped to fuel the Reaganfan challenge, in early 2014, not in 2013.

Once again your take on these events is clouded by the simple fact, that, as we painfully learned this summer, there is no substitute for being there. :P

All of that occurred after CARCA and after Hagrid more or less had stopped influencing the process by proxy. I was informed by pro-consolidation Federalists during that time that they were facing pressure not to be involved. In addition, I'm sure Federalist Independent President Duke can elaborate on just how much criticism (including a primary challenge) he faced over being pro-consolidation, but he can put it in his own words if he wishes!

I will say I think Yankee's memory of what happened was a bit more rosy than what actually occurred :P

I was basically told I needed to soften/abandon my consolidation rhetoric or I would lose the primary to Reaganfan, and Maxwell had to do the same before he launched his primary challenge against me. Neither of us were really able to run on pro-consolidation because it was so toxic that the party would elect a troll as their candidate over anyone remotely serious. They didn't like that I held hands with TNF and flirted with the Labor Party all during my presidency from across the bar, I was famously told that if I didn't blanket VETO every TNF/Labor bill, I shouldn't be in office. That was great advice! ;)

The consolidation debate is part of what pushed me to coming within a few minutes of switching to the Labor Party, I was so close I had written a speech announcing the switch which I still have somewhere on my computer, but at the end I decided to stay loyal mainly to Yankee and run with the Federalists because I'm a good friend and I don't abandon those who support me.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on October 31, 2015, 12:55:04 pm
and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation),

Bullsh**t!!!


Tmth was overwhelmingly elected as Party Chairman in December 2013 as an aknowledged supporter of Consolidation, to replace another pro-Consolidation Chairman, Maxwell. Duke was nominated in October 2013, running as a pro-Consolidation independent with a Federalist VP, who also supported consolidation.

Of the three Federalist Senators, only one voted against the final FTR amendment, and that was after said single Federalist Nay exerted much effort to assist in structuring a workable process. This same Nay voter than expedited the process to bring the FTR back up after three lame-ass Senators you elected went AWOL and caused it to fail the first time. Of course you weren't here for that because you had pussed out like a err deregistered. :P

The  opposition that killed it at the ratification booth came to ahead in January 2014, by which time Duke had been damaged amongst Conservatives from the perception he was too compromising with TNF. I would also remind you that the first, albeit abortive, challenger to Duke, was pro-consolidation Maxwell.

Consolidation did divide the Party, but there was no effort to lynch pro-consolidation people because they were pro-consolidation and it was certainly not an overwhelming factor whilst CARCA 2013 was underway. It did get lumped onto many unfair critiques that was leveled at Duke and helped to fuel the Reaganfan challenge, in early 2014, not in 2013.

Once again your take on these events is clouded by the simple fact, that, as we painfully learned this summer, there is no substitute for being there. :P

All of that occurred after CARCA and after Hagrid more or less had stopped influencing the process by proxy. I was informed by pro-consolidation Federalists during that time that they were facing pressure not to be involved. In addition, I'm sure Federalist Independent President Duke can elaborate on just how much criticism (including a primary challenge) he faced over being pro-consolidation, but he can put it in his own words if he wishes!

I will say I think Yankee's memory of what happened was a bit more rosy than what actually occurred :P

I was basically told I needed to soften/abandon my consolidation rhetoric or I would lose the primary to Reaganfan, and Maxwell had to do the same before he launched his primary challenge against me. Neither of us were really able to run on pro-consolidation because it was so toxic that the party would elect a troll as their candidate over anyone remotely serious. They didn't like that I held hands with TNF and flirted with the Labor Party all during my presidency from across the bar, I was famously told that if I didn't blanket VETO every TNF/Labor bill, I shouldn't be in office. That was great advice! ;)

The consolidation debate is part of what pushed me to coming within a few minutes of switching to the Labor Party, I was so close I had written a speech announcing the switch which I still have somewhere on my computer, but at the end I decided to stay loyal mainly to Yankee and run with the Federalists because I'm a good friend and I don't abandon those who support me.

Well, in all fairness to Hagrid, he was trying to give his party's nomination to troll tickets (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175322.0) long before you (and even before consolidation!). :P


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: VPH on October 31, 2015, 01:46:59 pm
Aye if I haven't voted already on this amendment (kinda confused)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on October 31, 2015, 03:04:58 pm
I can't remember if I've voted on this or not - Nay if I haven't


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on November 01, 2015, 12:43:53 pm
The amendment passed.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on November 01, 2015, 12:46:10 pm
Now, it's time for Griffin's amendment. Delegates have 24 hours to object.

Quote
ARTICLE IV
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states jurisdictions of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Newfoundland & Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, the Bahamas, Cuba, Delaware, the Dominican Republic, Florida, Georgia, Haiti, Jamaica, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Manitoba, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Oceania, Oregon, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Yukon, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

Visual representation (Oceania not pictured) (http://imgur.com/PU2paoI.png)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Senator Cris on November 01, 2015, 12:50:29 pm
I object.

I don't think we need Canada provincies and a few Central American states. I'm fully supporting the 50 states map + DC and PR.
If we keep Canada provincies and add these new states, a lot of them will be inhabited. Having these provinces/states will not bring any benefit to Atlasia.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 01, 2015, 01:21:15 pm
Griffin, you may have already posted this argument somewhere, but what is the rationale for this amendment? I specifically have concerns with adding some of the Central American states. Shouldn't we be respecting their sovereignty?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clark Kent on November 01, 2015, 01:28:21 pm
I like Griffin's amendment. I don't think adding Canada would be a bad thing at all.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 01, 2015, 01:37:45 pm
I also object.

We already have lots of states that are uninhabited already - so adding new 'jurisdictions' to the game would leave more uninhabited. I feel 50 states + DC + PR is enough.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 01, 2015, 04:37:26 pm
Personally, I am not in favor of having anything outside the United States.

The U.S. plus Puerto Rico should suffice.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Classic Conservative on November 01, 2015, 04:38:08 pm
I also object I don't like this at all.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Senator Cris on November 01, 2015, 04:50:32 pm
A 48-hours vote on this amendment is now open. Please vote.

Quote
ARTICLE IV
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states jurisdictions of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Brunswick, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Newfoundland & Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, the Bahamas, Cuba, Delaware, the Dominican Republic, Florida, Georgia, Haiti, Jamaica, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Manitoba, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Oceania, Oregon, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Yukon, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

Visual representation (Oceania not pictured) (http://imgur.com/PU2paoI.png)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Classic Conservative on November 01, 2015, 04:53:22 pm
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 01, 2015, 05:28:01 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Oakvale on November 01, 2015, 05:34:29 pm
Nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on November 01, 2015, 05:38:12 pm
Abstain.

I don't care about this issues.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on November 01, 2015, 06:38:26 pm
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 01, 2015, 06:46:33 pm
Abstain


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 01, 2015, 09:21:29 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 01, 2015, 10:12:02 pm
Griffin, you may have already posted this argument somewhere, but what is the rationale for this amendment? I specifically have concerns with adding some of the Central American states. Shouldn't we be respecting their sovereignty?

Quote
  • Implements the entirety of Canada as an equally-playable series of provinces within our new game; no need to consult the U.N. since we are building a new time-line from scratch
  • Because the A-CCM had to take into account providing provinces to all 5 regions in order to pass, the eastern provinces of Canada/the map overall looked goofy with Southern Canadian provinces completely separate from the rest of the region. As such, I propose a compromise that provides the Southern region with 5 formerly-sovereign Caribbean entities that would now be incorporated as states all the same. This ensures that all regions are properly represented in the expansion of playable game boundaries.

I object.

I don't think we need Canada provincies and a few Central American states. I'm fully supporting the 50 states map + DC and PR.
If we keep Canada provincies and add these new states, a lot of them will be inhabited. Having these provinces/states will not bring any benefit to Atlasia.

I also object.

We already have lots of states that are uninhabited already - so adding new 'jurisdictions' to the game would leave more uninhabited. I feel 50 states + DC + PR is enough.

If uninhabited states is for some reason a huge concern, then we better go ahead and cede 5-10 US states to the Mexicans or whomever as well. It has no tangible negative impact on gameplay and I am confident that I am the only person in the game who could somewhat name off of the top of his head which states are currently uninhabited in the first place.

     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 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168533.0). I'm clueless as to why everybody is suddenly upset about it now.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 01, 2015, 10:33:11 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: VPH on November 01, 2015, 10:36:46 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on November 01, 2015, 11:04:40 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 02, 2015, 02:16:04 am
and yet you didn't join the process (presumably because the Federalists were lynching people right and left for daring to support consolidation),

Bullsh**t!!!


Tmth was overwhelmingly elected as Party Chairman in December 2013 as an aknowledged supporter of Consolidation, to replace another pro-Consolidation Chairman, Maxwell. Duke was nominated in October 2013, running as a pro-Consolidation independent with a Federalist VP, who also supported consolidation.

Of the three Federalist Senators, only one voted against the final FTR amendment, and that was after said single Federalist Nay exerted much effort to assist in structuring a workable process. This same Nay voter than expedited the process to bring the FTR back up after three lame-ass Senators you elected went AWOL and caused it to fail the first time. Of course you weren't here for that because you had pussed out like a err deregistered. :P

The  opposition that killed it at the ratification booth came to ahead in January 2014, by which time Duke had been damaged amongst Conservatives from the perception he was too compromising with TNF. I would also remind you that the first, albeit abortive, challenger to Duke, was pro-consolidation Maxwell.

Consolidation did divide the Party, but there was no effort to lynch pro-consolidation people because they were pro-consolidation and it was certainly not an overwhelming factor whilst CARCA 2013 was underway. It did get lumped onto many unfair critiques that was leveled at Duke and helped to fuel the Reaganfan challenge, in early 2014, not in 2013.

Once again your take on these events is clouded by the simple fact, that, as we painfully learned this summer, there is no substitute for being there. :P

All of that occurred after CARCA and after Hagrid more or less had stopped influencing the process by proxy. I was informed by pro-consolidation Federalists during that time that they were facing pressure not to be involved. In addition, I'm sure Federalist Independent President Duke can elaborate on just how much criticism (including a primary challenge) he faced over being pro-consolidation, but he can put it in his own words if he wishes!

I will say I think Yankee's memory of what happened was a bit more rosy than what actually occurred :P

I was basically told I needed to soften/abandon my consolidation rhetoric or I would lose the primary to Reaganfan, and Maxwell had to do the same before he launched his primary challenge against me. Neither of us were really able to run on pro-consolidation because it was so toxic that the party would elect a troll as their candidate over anyone remotely serious. They didn't like that I held hands with TNF and flirted with the Labor Party all during my presidency from across the bar, I was famously told that if I didn't blanket VETO every TNF/Labor bill, I shouldn't be in office. That was great advice! ;)

The consolidation debate is part of what pushed me to coming within a few minutes of switching to the Labor Party, I was so close I had written a speech announcing the switch which I still have somewhere on my computer, but at the end I decided to stay loyal mainly to Yankee and run with the Federalists because I'm a good friend and I don't abandon those who support me.

You missed my point Adam was taking about CARCA, which if memory serves me was in October/November 2013. It was certainly before Adam deregistered and therefore couldn't have been in December or later.

Everything you are saying was true, in December and afterwards. There was resistance in the fall, but it was mainly centered in the Mideast, the region to be axed until a month or two later. I am not aware of any organized opposition in October within Federalist circles. I nearly left the Party myself because I felt it had not taken Rimjob seriously even much less any concern about consolidation. There was dramatic shift once Hagrid began to actively oppose consolidation.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Leinad on November 02, 2015, 03:40:20 am
Aye!

Empty space is irrelevant--I've yet to hear a reason why that actually matters. As far as national sovereignty, who's to say the NPCs aren't joining voluntarily?

Anyway, I think it would be fun to register in Jamaica or Cuba or whatever. It adds a new element to the game, even if it's a very small one.

Leinad:

Well, you can say as well that not all the people voted for the election of the delegates. The CARCA represented every people that wanted to participate: DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

The key difference is this: the Convention is official, it's binding, the CARCA was ultimately not. As much as you and others keep saying it was, it's still just an informal meeting of certain unelected people.

It's completely different. Yes, the CARCA happened, it's map was a good starting point, but, and this is the main idea I'm trying to get through: we are under no obligation to follow what happened at the CARCA to the letter. And I'm glad the majority of my fellow delegates agree with me on that.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on November 02, 2015, 03:41:28 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: ilikeverin on November 02, 2015, 09:04:50 am
Nope >:(


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 02, 2015, 09:34:11 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Clark Kent on November 02, 2015, 09:42:53 am
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 02, 2015, 10:28:58 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 02, 2015, 10:42:57 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168533.0). 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: bore on November 02, 2015, 05:03:38 pm
Nay



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on November 02, 2015, 05:47:06 pm
Changing my vote to Aye.

I honestly believe this idea is useless but there are people who have been registered in Canada and I dont support mass deportation.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Prince of Salem on November 02, 2015, 09:01:43 pm
Abstain.

I don't care about this issues.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 02, 2015, 10:16:36 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on November 03, 2015, 05:02:45 pm
The amendment failed to pass.

AYEs: 6
NAYs: 13
ABSTAINs: 2


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on November 03, 2015, 05:08:32 pm
Cris,
Dont forget I would like a thread to be open about the number of office someone could hold ;).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 03, 2015, 07:14:58 pm
The amendment failed to pass.

AYEs: 6
NAYs: 13
ABSTAINs: 2

There were 3 abstentions, I think (me, Windjammer, and JoMCaR).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on amendment)
Post by: Leinad on November 03, 2015, 10:08:13 pm
The amendment failed to pass.

AYEs: 6
NAYs: 13
ABSTAINs: 2

There were 3 abstentions, I think (me, Windjammer, and JoMCaR).

It was, but:



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 09, 2015, 08:10:36 pm
With the failure of Griffin's amendment, this is the current text:

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

I hereby offer the following amendment:
Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


I would remind the delegates that we have already approved a Principle Vote legalizing secession, so rejecting this amendment will NOT result in secession being outlawed in the new Constitution. This vote will merely determine the method by which Regions may withdraw from the Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 09, 2015, 08:30:18 pm
Here is the map:

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 09, 2015, 08:53:13 pm
What is the rationale against the regions being named West, Southeast and Northeast?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 09, 2015, 11:09:11 pm
What is the rationale against the regions being named West, Southeast and Northeast?

I think the current names are more original and add a bit of creative flair to the map; however, if the Convention would prefer compass names, I'd be fine with that as well.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 09, 2015, 11:16:28 pm
Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 09, 2015, 11:45:16 pm
What is the rationale against the regions being named West, Southeast and Northeast?

I think the current names are more original and add a bit of creative flair to the map; however, if the Convention would prefer compass names, I'd be fine with that as well.
I just think it would be confusing, especially for new members. We want to make this game more welcoming to new members, and I don't think this accomplishes that. Especially considering only one of them (Franklin) is a name with high recognition.

If we reverted to directions, would people be fine with Northeast, Southeast and West? Or North, South and West? What do folks like?



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 10, 2015, 02:01:29 am
I object to Trumans amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 10, 2015, 02:24:42 am
Once again, it would be my preference for the regions to decide the names of the region like the south going from Southeast, to Dirty South, to Imperial Dominion of the South and now to just South, that was our choice and it should be the region's choice under the new constitution.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 10, 2015, 12:06:19 pm
Actually, Truman's  idea of regional names is a good one.

After all, the nation has a particular name, Atlasia.

Franklin, a founding father from the Northeast
Rayburn, an outstanding legislator from the South
Fremont, a notable explorer of the West

Throughout the world, regions, provinces, states, have their own distinctive name, not simply named after their geographic location.

There is nothing confusing about three names.  Anybody whether new or anyone who has been here for awhile should be able to recognize three different names.

You are really underestimating people's intelligence by saying new players would find it confusing.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 10, 2015, 12:54:22 pm
I do not believe that the regions should be allowed to name their own region.

Nor do I believe that the regions should have any authority to change the name of their region.

The Atlasian constitution should set the boundaries of the regions and the names of the regions, so they are set, and cannot be changed.

Otherwise we end up with ridiculous names like the Imperial Dominion of the South, the Dirty South, the Althing, etc, etc, etc, or whatever.

As well, the Atlasian constitution should lay out the names of the officers of the regions.  All regions should have a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, an Assembly, members of the Assemblies shall all be known as Representatives.

That way we avoid ridiculous titles such as Emperor or Grand Vizier, King in the North, or whatever.

We have to set standards and make them permanent.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clark Kent on November 10, 2015, 01:19:24 pm
I don't mind the names.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 10, 2015, 02:11:19 pm
I do not believe that the regions should be allowed to name their own region.

Nor do I believe that the regions should have any authority to change the name of their region.

The Atlasian constitution should set the boundaries of the regions and the names of the regions, so they are set, and cannot be changed.

Otherwise we end up with ridiculous names like the Imperial Dominion of the South, the Dirty South, the Althing, etc, etc, etc, or whatever.

As well, the Atlasian constitution should lay out the names of the officers of the regions.  All regions should have a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, an Assembly, members of the Assemblies shall all be known as Representatives.

That way we avoid ridiculous titles such as Emperor or Grand Vizier, King in the North, or whatever.

We have to set standards and make them permanent.

Why shouldn't the regions get to decide that? The federal government shouldn't be as trusted either.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 10, 2015, 05:22:18 pm
This is patently ridiculous. There is no way I am going to let this power be usurped from the regions in this new constitution. I came here to effect devolution, not the centralization of the right to pick these names. The DS/IDS and Most Serene Republic of the Midwest have the right to name themselves what they want. If the people of the South vote to change their name, then by golly sir, it will do so whether this Constitution likes it or not. That is the road to secession, my friend, I think your region's recent experience would illustrate the need to not repress regions in their cultural choices, otherwise they will seek other homes.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 10, 2015, 06:49:10 pm
I'd like to remind everyone that the amendment under consideration deals with secession procedure, not the names of the Regions. Once this amendment has been adopted/rejected, I will call a STV principle vote in which ever delegate may propose names for the three Regions ("Let the Regions name themselves" would also be an option).



Per the delegate from the Mideast's objection, a vote is now open on Truman's amendment. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 10, 2015, 06:56:32 pm
AYE!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Classic Conservative on November 10, 2015, 07:22:53 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: MadmanMotley on November 10, 2015, 07:46:02 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 10, 2015, 08:11:38 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Leinad on November 11, 2015, 06:21:54 am
Aye.

3/4th might be a little steep for me, but it's alright. As long as the right to self-determination is recognized to an extent, providing a check to federal tyranny, I'm happy with this.

Actually, Truman's  idea of regional names is a good one.

After all, the nation has a particular name, Atlasia.

There's a difference. What would the alternative be? "Nation?" There's no simple alternative analogous to "West" or "South" or whatever, so a particular name is, in that case, the most logical choice.

Quote
There is nothing confusing about three names.  Anybody whether new or anyone who has been here for awhile should be able to recognize three different names.

You are really underestimating people's intelligence by saying new players would find it confusing.

It's a bit of a task to ask people to connect these names to those regions. They already connect the West, the South, and the North to the regions in question. It's natural. There's nothing new to learn.

I do not believe that the regions should be allowed to name their own region.

Nor do I believe that the regions should have any authority to change the name of their region.

The Atlasian constitution should set the boundaries of the regions and the names of the regions, so they are set, and cannot be changed.

Otherwise we end up with ridiculous names like the Imperial Dominion of the South, the Dirty South, the Althing, etc, etc, etc, or whatever.

As well, the Atlasian constitution should lay out the names of the officers of the regions.  All regions should have a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, an Assembly, members of the Assemblies shall all be known as Representatives.

That way we avoid ridiculous titles such as Emperor or Grand Vizier, King in the North, or whatever.

We have to set standards and make them permanent.

So, you trust the federal government to come up with The Almighty Standard, but don't trust the regional governments with that ability? If it's so likely that the regions will screw it up, why are you so sure the federal government won't do the same?

And what on earth is wrong with culture? What on earth is wrong with individuality? Why on earth are you arguing for conformity over creativity? Rigid rules over the ability to make up our own minds on details that have nothing to do with the mechanics of the game, but merely the fun names and titles we give ourselves?

After talking about how terrible the idea of legislature-elected senators is, I'm shocked to hear you, Winfield, take such an elitist stance on this, centralizing the control among the highest up the pyramid, and leaving the regular folk to shut up and accept this one-size-fits-all approach, instead of fine-tuning the regions to what the people themselves want.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 11, 2015, 06:52:20 am
AYE




Some people just couldn't stand the fact that South had chosen to name itself first Dirty South and then Imperial Dominion of the South. Even though it hasn't been the latter for nine months, many are still burned by it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 11, 2015, 07:48:39 am
Nay

Should be turnout based - as if only one person voted (and it was a vote in favour) it would be over 75% in favour. A 60% turnout of eligible voters would be my preference.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Senator Cris on November 11, 2015, 10:19:22 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 11, 2015, 10:53:48 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 11, 2015, 10:39:19 pm
Abstain


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: ilikeverin on November 12, 2015, 09:11:07 am
Yup


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 12, 2015, 11:31:24 am
Nay, 2/3 vote is fine.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 12, 2015, 11:39:06 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on November 12, 2015, 11:48:32 am
Nay.

Too high a threshold and doesn't take into account turn out considerations.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 12, 2015, 03:02:48 pm
     Aye. In reality, it is not a decision to be undertaken lightly.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 12, 2015, 10:16:04 pm
With a vote of 11 Ayes, 3 Nays, 1 Abstention, and 10 delegates not voting, Truman's amendment has been adopted.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 13, 2015, 10:52:19 am
Just to confirm - after final Constitution has been approved by the delegates, does it go to a public vote on the proposed constitution?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 13, 2015, 04:33:00 pm
As promised, we will now proceed with a two-stage principle vote on Regional nomenclature. Delegates have 72 hours to suggest names for the proposed Regions; at the expiration of that time, a 48-hour principle vote will be held to select the best proposal.

For the sake of simplicity (and so that I know which name goes with which Region), I ask that you submit your proposals in this format:


Region A (blue): _____________________
Region B (green): _____________________
Region C (red): _____________________

()


Just to confirm - after final Constitution has been approved by the delegates, does it go to a public vote on the proposed constitution?

Correct. Just like Constitutional Amendments, the new Constitution will need to be ratified by 4 of the 5 Regions.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 13, 2015, 05:39:58 pm
Region A (blue): West
Region B (green): South
Region C (red): Northeast

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 13, 2015, 06:03:07 pm

Region A (blue): Fremont_____________________
Region B (green): Rayburn_____________________
Region C (red): Franklin_____________________

()




Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on November 14, 2015, 05:25:28 am
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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on November 14, 2015, 08:59:31 am
Region A (blue): West_____________________
Region B (green): South_____________________
Region C (red): Northeast_____________________

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 14, 2015, 01:44:54 pm
Region A (blue): West_____________________
Region B (green): South_____________________
Region C (red): Northeast_____________________

()


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on November 14, 2015, 11:44:14 pm
Truman hasn't opened the voting yet, right? Why is everyone suggesting the same things over and over again?

Anyway, I suggest to the Presiding Officer that there be two votes: one for the starting names, and another for whether the regions are allowed to change the names or not.

And while I'm at it, this is a good a time to bring it up as any: I presume the three new regions will have constitutional conventions of their own, right? Are there any details set up for that? If not, that should be defined in some way.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 15, 2015, 12:08:31 pm
Truman hasn't opened the voting yet, right? Why is everyone suggesting the same things over and over again?

Anyway, I suggest to the Presiding Officer that there be two votes: one for the starting names, and another for whether the regions are allowed to change the names or not.

And while I'm at it, this is a good a time to bring it up as any: I presume the three new regions will have constitutional conventions of their own, right? Are there any details set up for that? If not, that should be defined in some way.
He's opened up for name suggestions - I think. However, it would be much easier to just hold the vote on the region names now.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: VPH on November 15, 2015, 03:09:45 pm
Region A (blue): _______McGovern______________
Region B (green): ______Kefauver_______________
Region C (red): ________Kennedy_____________


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 16, 2015, 02:45:06 am

Region A (blue): Wolfen
Region B (green): Griffin
Region C (red): Hamilton


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 16, 2015, 03:40:30 am

Region A (blue): bgwah
Region B (green): Duke
Region C (red): Scott


FTFY :P


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 16, 2015, 10:46:26 pm
Since it is obvious that this convention is not going to adopt the sensible names  suggested by Truman and myself, why not simply go with the obvious West, South, North.

I say North because not all of the states in the red area are actually Northeast states.  North is actually more representative of the red region than is Northeast.

In the interest of unity, I ask my fellow delegates to get behind the names of West, South, North, and let us get on with other matters.

West, South, North should not be objectionable or controversial.

I change my vote to West, South, North.   

Region A (blue):West_________________
Region B (green): South_____________________
Region C (red): North_____________________

()




Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 16, 2015, 11:06:30 pm

Sorry, those don't have a mnemonic device! :D


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 17, 2015, 03:34:21 am
I do agree with North as being superior to Northeast. However, I must insist that the the right of the regions to change their names be preserved.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on November 17, 2015, 08:35:05 am
I do agree with North as being superior to Northeast. However, I must insist that the the right of the regions to change their names be preserved.

Agreed on both accounts. It's silly to call Wisconsin and Illinois the "Northeast," but it's even sillier to keep these regions from changing their names.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 17, 2015, 11:10:03 am
I do agree with North as being superior to Northeast. However, I must insist that the the right of the regions to change their names be preserved.

Agreed on both accounts. It's silly to call Wisconsin and Illinois the "Northeast," but it's even sillier to keep these regions from changing their names.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 17, 2015, 04:02:45 pm
A principle vote is now open on the question of Regional nomenclature. Please rank the following proposals according to your preference. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

[   ] West, South, Northeast
[   ] Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin
[   ] McGovern, Kefauver, Kennedy
[   ] Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton
[   ] Bgwah, Duke, Scott
[   ] West, South, North
[   ] Let the Regions name themselves


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 17, 2015, 04:05:30 pm
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

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


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 17, 2015, 06:58:01 pm
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

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


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 17, 2015, 08:43:25 pm
[1] West, South, Northeast
[   ] Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin
[   ] McGovern, Kefauver, Kennedy
[   ] Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton
[   ] Bgwah, Duke, Scott
[2] West, South, North
[3] Let the Regions name themselves


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: MadmanMotley on November 17, 2015, 08:58:21 pm

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



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT 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


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 18, 2015, 01:12:47 am
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

[ 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


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 18, 2015, 05:14:29 am
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

[3] West, South, Northeast
[4] Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin
[5] McGovern, Kefauver, Kennedy
[1] Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton
[2] Let the Regions name themselves


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Leinad on November 18, 2015, 06:46:17 am
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

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


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clark Kent on November 18, 2015, 01:11:15 pm
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

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


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: bore on November 18, 2015, 01:20:24 pm
West, South, Northeast


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Senator Cris on November 18, 2015, 03:33:20 pm
1. West, South, Northeast
2. West, South, North
3. Let the Regions name themselves


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on November 18, 2015, 06:58:11 pm
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

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


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 18, 2015, 10:16:55 pm
1.  West, South, North


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 19, 2015, 09:00:03 am
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Principle Vote on Regional Nomenclature
()

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


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 19, 2015, 05:15:29 pm
RESULTS of the PRINCIPLE VOTE on REGIONAL NOMENCLATURE

Round I
(6) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4) West, South, Northeast
(2) West, South, North
(1) Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin
(1) Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton

As "Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin" has the greatest number of second preferences, "Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton" is eliminated

Round II
(7) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4) West, South, Northeast
(2) West, South, North
(1) Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin

"Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin" is eliminated

Round III
(8 ) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4 ) West, South, Northeast
(2 ) West, South, North

With a majority of voting delegates in favor, the Convention has elected to devolve this issue to the newly-established Regions.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 19, 2015, 05:34:18 pm
     Cause for celebration, if you ask me.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 19, 2015, 06:40:53 pm
Happy to hear. I will reach out to the Governor's of the newly elected regions to ensure there is some consistency between the three.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 19, 2015, 07:09:48 pm
Yes, this was probably the best result in the long run. I'm glad to see that my Region won't be named after a sockmaster, at any rate.

As the issue of Regional powers is being discussed in another thread, I think this wraps up discussion on this topic. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I move that we consider this the final text for Article I:

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Powers)
[Being discussed in another thread]


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 19, 2015, 10:27:29 pm
RESULTS of the PRINCIPLE VOTE on REGIONAL NOMENCLATURE

Round I
(6) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4) West, South, Northeast
(2) West, South, North
(1) Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin
(1) Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton

As "Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin" has the greatest number of second preferences, "Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton" is eliminated

Round II
(7) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4) West, South, Northeast
(2) West, South, North
(1) Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin

"Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin" is eliminated

Round III
(8 ) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4 ) West, South, Northeast
(2 ) West, South, North

With a majority of voting delegates in favor, the Convention has elected to devolve this issue to the newly-established Regions.

EWWWWW YEAAH!!!! ALRIGHT!!!!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 19, 2015, 10:28:46 pm
Yes, this was probably the best result in the long run. I'm glad to see that my Region won't be named after a sockmaster, at any rate.

As the issue of Regional powers is being discussed in another thread, I think this wraps up discussion on this topic. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I move that we consider this the final text for Article I:

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Powers)
[Being discussed in another thread]


Though I should note I don't see any indication of devolution and a potential court case even imposing northern, southern and western as names under the supremacy clause.

We need something like this:
v. The regions reserve the right to change their names in accordance with their own constitutions and shall be recognized according to their new name by the Federal Government.

So I guess I object.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 20, 2015, 06:02:15 pm
Though I should note I don't see any indication of devolution and a potential court case even imposing northern, southern and western as names under the supremacy clause.

We need something like this:
v. The regions reserve the right to change their names in accordance with their own constitutions and shall be recognized according to their new name by the Federal Government.

So I guess I object.

Would this work?
Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Powers)
[Being discussed in another thread]



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 21, 2015, 12:21:18 am
we should also allow for a process for the restoration to 5 regions while we are at it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 21, 2015, 02:20:39 am
we should also allow for a process for the restoration to 5 regions while we are at it.
There is a process for that - a constitutional amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 21, 2015, 02:49:22 pm
Though I should note I don't see any indication of devolution and a potential court case even imposing northern, southern and western as names under the supremacy clause.

We need something like this:
v. The regions reserve the right to change their names in accordance with their own constitutions and shall be recognized according to their new name by the Federal Government.

So I guess I object.

Would this work?
Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Powers)
[Being discussed in another thread]


I will object to that - to enable a vote on it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 21, 2015, 02:55:44 pm
An vote is now open on Truman's amendment. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Powers)
[Being discussed in another thread]


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Classic Conservative on November 21, 2015, 03:00:51 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 21, 2015, 03:11:39 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clark Kent on November 21, 2015, 03:18:34 pm
Nay


It could very easily get out of hand.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 21, 2015, 03:20:04 pm
we should also allow for a process for the restoration to 5 regions while we are at it.
There is a process for that - a constitutional amendment.

Since we're in a Constitutional Convention I figure we should put the framework in so we could if future situations merit.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 21, 2015, 03:20:59 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 21, 2015, 03:21:46 pm
Aye, it could get out of hand, but hopefully the regions will put mechanisms in place so that the names aren't being changed every couple of months.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 21, 2015, 03:22:15 pm
AYE!

The Convention has already voted to leave this issue in the hands of the Regions. The principle of this matter is no longer up for debate.

we should also allow for a process for the restoration to 5 regions while we are at it.
There is a process for that - a constitutional amendment.

Since we're in a Constitutional Convention I figure we should put the framework in so we could if future situations merit.
And we will - by allowing the Constitution to be amended.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: VPH on November 21, 2015, 03:54:29 pm
aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Grand Inquisitor Lumine on November 21, 2015, 06:02:11 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: MadmanMotley on November 21, 2015, 06:13:43 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 21, 2015, 06:47:21 pm
     Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Senator Cris on November 21, 2015, 06:51:27 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 21, 2015, 08:44:45 pm
Aye

But we also really need to specify that there will be some sort of (in parentheses) regional identifier (likely based on geography) recognized in federal documents/Wiki if when the names become silly.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 21, 2015, 09:00:17 pm
Aye

But we also really need to specify that there will be some sort of (in parentheses) regional identifier (likely based on geography) recognized in federal documents/Wiki if when the names become silly.

And we know they will become silly.  Very silly.  I have been saying that for weeks in this convention.

That is why we should have set names, unchangeable.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 21, 2015, 09:00:40 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on November 21, 2015, 09:11:21 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Leinad on November 22, 2015, 01:15:29 am
AYE!

Out of hand, out of shmand. If the majority of people in a region decide a name is best, what right do other people have to tell them not to do it? If it's that important, re-register in that region and vote for a boring name, or campaign to voters for the boring name of your choice. (Not that I'm against boring names, I just don't think they should be federally mandated.)

I mean, how bad can it get? Did Atlasia die when the South changed it's name to "Dirty South?" Or "Imperial Dominion of the South," and renamed Governors "Emperors?"


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Prince of Salem on November 22, 2015, 01:46:03 am
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on November 22, 2015, 02:53:43 am
aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: NeverAgain on November 22, 2015, 08:30:45 am
Aye.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Oakvale on November 22, 2015, 03:43:26 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: bore on November 22, 2015, 04:30:46 pm
Abstain


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 22, 2015, 06:40:46 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 22, 2015, 10:49:05 pm
Well, you know, some Libertarians, who shall remain anonymous, bless their hearts, believe that citizens should have the right to do anything without any interference from governments.

Truly, there are times when citizens have to be protected from themselves by governments.   


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 23, 2015, 03:17:16 am
AYE


Well, you know, some Libertarians, who shall remain anonymous, bless their hearts, believe that citizens should have the right to do anything without any interference from governments.

Truly, there are times when citizens have to be protected from themselves by governments.   

Dallas and Nappy's 2014 romp through the Northeast really did leave a lasting impact on you.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 23, 2015, 02:12:41 pm
AYE


Well, you know, some Libertarians, who shall remain anonymous, bless their hearts, believe that citizens should have the right to do anything without any interference from governments.

Truly, there are times when citizens have to be protected from themselves by governments.  

Dallas and Nappy's 2014 romp through the Northeast really did leave a lasting impact on you.

Napoleon was always one of my very best friends and allies on this forum.

He and I supported one another the vast majority of the time, so I fail to see your point here regarding my good friend Napoleon.

Dallasfan and I had our differences,  true enough, as he seemed to have a philosophy of anything goes, no matter the harm done.

I am pleased to say that I was successful in having some of his more obscene ands harmful pieces of legislation repealed and overturned.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: ilikeverin on November 23, 2015, 02:47:48 pm
;D  This is absolutely necessary to our democracy.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 23, 2015, 07:47:28 pm
With 22 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstention, and 2 members not voting1, this amendment has passed.

1Nice improvement, guys!



I now open the floor for final amendments to the text of this Article. IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS WITHIN 24 HOURS, I WILL MOVE TO CLOSE DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 24, 2015, 03:38:59 pm
Seeing no objection, we will now proceed with a final vote on this Article. If this measure should pass, I will close debate on this topic and the below text will become the final text for Article I. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain; voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

EDIT: On second though, this vote will last 72 hours (until 3:38 on Friday) in observance of Thanksgiving.

EDIT #2: THIS IS A VOTE TO END DEBATE IN THIS THREAD ONLY, NOT TO SET THE BELOW TEXT IN STONE. BY VOTING 'AYE', YOU ARE VOTING TO END DEBATE ON CONSOLIDATION, REGIONAL NAMES, & SECESSION. WE WILL CONTINUE DEBATING SECTION 3 IN  THIS THREAD (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220721.0)!

Quote
ARTICLE I
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Powers)
[Being discussed in another thread]


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: NeverAgain on November 24, 2015, 03:58:57 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 24, 2015, 04:00:25 pm
AYE!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Classic Conservative on November 24, 2015, 04:04:25 pm
Even though I don't support seccesion.
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clark Kent on November 24, 2015, 04:11:02 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 24, 2015, 04:17:52 pm
How can there be a final vote on this article when the article clearly isn't finished yet?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on November 24, 2015, 04:18:17 pm
nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: tmthforu94 on November 24, 2015, 04:42:57 pm
Echoing what Adam said.... ???

Nay, for now.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on November 24, 2015, 04:44:30 pm
     Abstain


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: bore on November 24, 2015, 05:02:20 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 24, 2015, 05:14:12 pm
How can there be a final vote on this article when the article clearly isn't finished yet?


Sorry, I should have been more clear. We're voting on closing debate in this thread specifically, not the entirety of this Article. The debate on Regional powers (Section 3) will continue in the appropriate thread.

As such, I urge those who have voted NAY to change their votes (unless you feel we should continue discussing the number of Regions, Regional names, secession, etc.). My poor phrasing aside, this is NOT a final vote on this Article; rather, it is a vote to end debate on the number of Regions.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on November 24, 2015, 05:26:13 pm
Even with the clarification, nay - I feel there are still discussions to be had here.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Clyde1998 on November 24, 2015, 06:11:37 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on November 24, 2015, 06:22:13 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Leinad on November 24, 2015, 07:52:34 pm
Even with the clarification, nay - I feel there are still discussions to be had here.

I'm voting Nay until the President sheds light on the discussions yet to be had. If there's more work to be done, I suggest we not leave the subject without doing it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 25, 2015, 12:21:43 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: ilikeverin on November 25, 2015, 04:51:57 pm
Yup - I don't know what more there is to be said.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Prince of Salem on November 25, 2015, 05:23:45 pm
Even with the clarification, nay - I feel there are still discussions to be had here.

I'm voting Nay until the President sheds light on the discussions yet to be had. If there's more work to be done, I suggest we not leave the subject without doing it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on November 25, 2015, 06:26:32 pm
What are we voting on exactly this time? I'm so lost :P


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: NeverAgain on November 25, 2015, 06:36:38 pm
What are we voting on exactly this time? I'm so lost :P
Whether to continue debate in this thread.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Senator Cris on November 26, 2015, 09:24:29 am
Abstain


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on November 26, 2015, 07:55:48 pm
Did I vote already?
But, AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on November 27, 2015, 05:06:36 pm
By a vote of 6 Ayes, 9 Nays, 2 Abstentions, and with 8 members not voting, this motion has FAILED.

As the Convention has elected to continue discussing this topic, I invite the delegates to propose topics for further debate. As we already have a thread devoted to discussing the powers held by the Regions, I ask that you refrain from making suggestions along the lines of "I think the Regions should be able to do X."


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on November 27, 2015, 11:43:35 pm
It appears we still have a some ways to go on the communication front. ;)


Anyway, Griffin what concerns precisely would fit here as opposed to the other thread on regional powers?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on December 01, 2015, 05:15:33 am
Sorry guys, I had a bit thing typed out last night, forgot to post it, and lost it. I'll get it rewritten sometime in the next day or so.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on December 01, 2015, 02:08:22 pm
Thee multiple threads are confusing and I can't keep track with what we are debating any given time. This is no fault of Mr. Truman, but that's how I feel about it. I think it would be easier to tackle one issue at a time and move on.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 01, 2015, 04:42:43 pm
Thee multiple threads are confusing and I can't keep track with what we are debating any given time. This is no fault of Mr. Truman, but that's how I feel about it. I think it would be easier to tackle one issue at a time and move on.

     It is pretty challenging to follow all these streams. Hopefully we'll be wrapping up some of these soon.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 01, 2015, 04:57:57 pm
Thee multiple threads are confusing and I can't keep track with what we are debating any given time. This is no fault of Mr. Truman, but that's how I feel about it. I think it would be easier to tackle one issue at a time and move on.

     It is pretty challenging to follow all these streams. Hopefully we'll be wrapping up some of these soon.
That's the plan. I don't want to shutter any ongoing conversations, but I don't plan on starting new threads until everything we're currently dealing with has been completed.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 03, 2015, 11:15:05 pm
Sorry guys, I had a bit thing typed out last night, forgot to post it, and lost it. I'll get it rewritten sometime in the next day or so.
Perhaps you could give us a brief summary of what you have in mind, so that we have a general idea of where the debate is headed?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (FINAL VOTE)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on December 08, 2015, 03:20:17 am
OK, so allow me to try to rehash what I wrote but lost. This isn't everything but it's a part and I've failed to get it all posted thus far so here we go:

One issue is that a simple principle vote doesn't automatically imbue the document with a guarantee, in my opinion; it justifies what must next be brought up for a vote in terms of the formal language being added. So when we voted to let the regions name themselves, we didn't actually add any text to the document, for instance (as evidenced in what we voted on last).

Furthermore, there were minute errors like the scratching of the "Article" identifier in the last respective amended vote we had on the particular topic. I don't believe the PO gets to automatically alter text in the document based on a mistake in the amendment process in order to clarify it; what we vote on and approve in terms of text is actually what is in the document.

With that being said, this is everything we have approved thus far in the document (excluding any simple principal votes that didn't result in a later specific amendment) and so this is what the actual document from this thread currently looks like. I had begun editing the document in preparation of offering an amendment but I cannot recall specifically what I had edited other than what I have put in bold below.

Quote
Section: Regional Boundaries
[...]
.  Regions, states, or groups shall not have the right to secede from Atlasia or any of its territories.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions, each of which shall have the authority to name itself and have said name recognized by the Federal Government.
ii. The Northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and shall be styled "Franklin."
iii. The Southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and shall be styled "Rayburn."
iv. The Western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and shall be be styled "Fremont."

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 08, 2015, 11:15:27 am
One issue is that a simple principle vote doesn't automatically imbue the document with a guarantee, in my opinion; it justifies what must next be brought up for a vote in terms of the formal language being added. So when we voted to let the regions name themselves, we didn't actually add any text to the document, for instance (as evidenced in what we voted on last).

Actually, we did:

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)...
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4809744#msg4809744)

Would you still like to submit your amendment?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 10, 2015, 06:04:07 pm
I am going to take the liberty of dismissing Griffin's amendment, seeing as the current text already states explicitly that the Regions may name themselves. Are there any other proposals on the floor? If you don't feel up to writing a formal amendment at the moment, feel free to simply explain the changes you would like to see made in shorthand - we can always work them into a formal proposal later.

For reference, here is the text as of the most recent amendment:

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Powers)
[Being discussed in another thread]


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on December 15, 2015, 10:03:39 am
I think everything looks good here more or less. Are we going to specify which article this belongs in now, or later?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 15, 2015, 01:16:30 pm
I think everything looks good here more or less. Are we going to specify which article this belongs in now, or later?
My thought was that we would number the Articles once everything has been completed. And I agree that there is really nothing more to discuss here (hence why I motioned that we end debate three weeks ago - literally nothing has been proposed since then that wasn't already in the text).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 17, 2015, 05:38:00 pm
Barring any objections, in 24 hours' time I will call for a final vote on this Article. I URGE ALL DELEGATES TO READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE, LOCATED HERE (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4825217#msg4825217), BEFORE THAT TIME AND ACT ACCORDINGLY. I'd really rather not spend another three weeks on this part of the Constitution because people misread the text. If you have any questions about what a particular clause means, please post them in this thread and/or send me a PM. It's time to get this Convention rolling again.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 17, 2015, 06:34:03 pm
We're not voting yet (the vote will begin in ~24 hrs if there are no objections).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: NeverAgain on December 17, 2015, 07:04:27 pm
We're not voting yet (the vote will begin in ~24 hrs if there are no objections).
I didn't read the timestamp. Apologies.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 18, 2015, 01:09:28 pm
I will object, regarding Section Two. I have mentioned (I can't remember if I proposed an amendment though) that Section Two should include a turnout clause - as it's possible that there is only one vote in the referendum, which would be over the (ridiculously high) 75% threshold. Also, a 3-1 vote in favour is possible in an inactive region, four votes might be around 15% of the electorate.

I know I won't get support for replacing the 75% threshold Yes vote with a turnout threshold, though.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (PRINCIPLE VOTE ON REGION NOMENCLATURE)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 18, 2015, 01:14:43 pm
Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union unless both of the following clauses are met:
 a. 75% (or higher) vote in favour of this in a referendum within the region in question.
 b. 40% (or higher) of the eligible electorate vote in the referendum.
  i. The eligible electorate shall only include voters who are able to cast a valid ballot in the referendum.


Section 3 (Powers)
[Being discussed in another thread]


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 18, 2015, 08:42:58 pm
I'm not adverse to adding a turnout threshold; however, there are some structural problems with that proposal that need to be addressed:

1. The current wording would allow states and "other entities" to declare themselves outside of the jurisdiction of the Constitution (aka nullification) without officially seceding from Atlasia. I assume this was an unintended typo, so I won't bother to explain why its not a good idea to allow states (most of which have a population of 1-2 voters) to decide that they're not going to follow the Constitution.
2. On a more stylistic note, the wording of the proposed amendment is slightly bulky and legalistic: while that doesn't greatly effect the substance of the proposal, if possible it would be best to adopt a more compact version.

To that end, I object to Clyde's amendment and propose the following alternative:

Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

The result is a provision that is reduced by more than 20 words and more in line with the style of the rest of the Constitution while still maintaining the essence of the original proposal.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 19, 2015, 12:42:40 pm
I'm not adverse to adding a turnout threshold; however, there are some structural problems with that proposal that need to be addressed:

1. The current wording would allow states and "other entities" to declare themselves outside of the jurisdiction of the Constitution (aka nullification) without officially seceding from Atlasia. I assume this was an unintended typo, so I won't bother to explain why its not a good idea to allow states (most of which have a population of 1-2 voters) to decide that they're not going to follow the Constitution.
2. On a more stylistic note, the wording of the proposed amendment is slightly bulky and legalistic: while that doesn't greatly effect the substance of the proposal, if possible it would be best to adopt a more compact version.

To that end, I object to Clyde's amendment and propose the following alternative:

Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

The result is a provision that is reduced by more than 20 words and more in line with the style of the rest of the Constitution while still maintaining the essence of the original proposal.
I'm happy with that proposal.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 19, 2015, 01:47:52 pm
     I would prefer to make it a set number of people must vote in favor instead of simply voting, so that we don't create political games of people invalidating their ballots to push it under the quorum mark. I suggest as an alternative:

Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 19, 2015, 02:23:21 pm
     I would prefer to make it a set number of people must vote in favor instead of simply voting, so that we don't create political games of people invalidating their ballots to push it under the quorum mark. I suggest as an alternative:

Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.
I object to that; I'll only agree if it replaces the 75% threshold of total voters voting in favour.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 19, 2015, 02:45:36 pm
Mathematically, there's only a slight difference between the minimum number of votes (mnv) required to secede under PiT's proposal compared to under Clyde/my proposal. Assuming a population of 40, a 40% turnout threshold with 75% support required would establish a mnv of 12; under PiT's alternate amendment, the mnv would be 13. In both cases, the number of "Yes" votes would account for 3/4 of the total number of ballots cast. In that sense, PiT's amendment is slightly tougher than Clyde's, as a result of 12-4 in favor of secession, assuming a population of 40, would result in the failure of the referendum.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 19, 2015, 03:18:54 pm
The question really is, how tough should it be?

If we take the Northeast referendum results and flip the Yes and No vote figures:

Yes - 12 (60% of votes; 34.3% of eligible voters)
No - 8 (40% of votes)
Turnout - 20 (57.1% of eligible voters)

Personally, this would be enough for any constitutional vote to pass. It passes through my proposed turnout filter and PiT's Yes turnout filter - and has a clear majority. It doesn't, however, pass through the 75% threshold.

If 8 people vote against independence, then the Yes campaign must win three times as many (24 in this case). That would see a 91.4% turnout in this example. It's as good as impossible to pass.

Let's take some international examples: the 1992 French referendum on the Maastricht Treaty passes with 51% of the vote, the 1997 Welsh devolution referendum passed with 50.3% of the vote, the 2006 Montenegrin independence referendum passed with 55.5% of the vote (this had a 55% Yes threshold) and the 1964 Malta independence referendum passed with 54.5% of the vote.

I personally would want to lower the 75% threshold.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 19, 2015, 04:20:47 pm
I personally would want to lower the 75% threshold.
You have the right to your own opinion; however, the Convention has already debated this issue extensively and elected by a democratic vote to set the threshold at 3/4. As I recall, you and others spoke in favor of a lower threshold then and were outvoted; it is not a prudent use of our time to re-litigate this issue.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 19, 2015, 05:26:42 pm
I personally would want to lower the 75% threshold.
You have the right to your own opinion; however, the Convention has already debated this issue extensively and elected by a democratic vote to set the threshold at 3/4. As I recall, you and others spoke in favor of a lower threshold then and were outvoted; it is not a prudent use of our time to re-litigate this issue.
Ten delegates didn't vote on it - which means that only 44% of delegates voted in favour:
With a vote of 11 Ayes, 3 Nays, 1 Abstention, and 10 delegates not voting, Truman's amendment has been adopted.
We held the vote on secession being legal twice, following a low turnout in the first vote.

I propose:
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/5 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (VOTING ON AMENDMENT)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 19, 2015, 06:31:55 pm
I personally would want to lower the 75% threshold.
You have the right to your own opinion; however, the Convention has already debated this issue extensively and elected by a democratic vote to set the threshold at 3/4. As I recall, you and others spoke in favor of a lower threshold then and were outvoted; it is not a prudent use of our time to re-litigate this issue.
Ten delegates didn't vote on it - which means that only 44% of delegates voted in favour:
That is unfortunate; however, we cannot simply keep re-voting on measures because certain individuals can't be bothered to do their jobs. Both sides were given time to voice their opinions, and a vote was held.

We held the vote on secession being legal twice, following a low turnout in the first vote.
This is a poor comparison. Many of the early votes on secession failed because the amendments being considered had structural flaws that caused supporters of secession to vote against them. The principle vote on secession was called because it was clear that the votes on these early amendments had not reflected a desire by the Convention to outlaw secession entirely. In short, delegates had been voting Nay for different reasons, some because they opposed secession, others because they thought there should be a different process for leaving the Union. By contrast, the amendment establishing the 3/4 threshold dealt with that aspect of the process alone; there were no other controversial changes made by that vote that would have caused the delegates to vote "Aye" unless they approved of the 3/4 provision.

It is very disturbing that so many delegates do not feel the need to do the jobs they were elected to do; however, I refuse to allow this Convention to be held hostage by their inactivity. The vote on the 3/4 threshold was fair, democratic, and produced a specific mandate in favor of that provision. I understand that you and others are unhappy with that, just as I am unhappy with the decision to allow Regions to separate from the Union, but that's how life works.

The most recent amendment proposed by Mr. Clyde is out of order. We will proceed with a vote on the turnout amendment proposed by Mr. Clyde and Mr. Truman tomorrow.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on December 20, 2015, 10:31:15 am
Are we really going to debate secession?

Because this has always been retarded.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 20, 2015, 04:33:10 pm
After carefully considering all options, I have determined that the best way to go about this is to vote on both of the proposed amendments simultaneously. Both the amendment introduced by Senator PiT and the one drafted by Clyde and myself seek to institute a turnout requirement for the secession referendum established in Section 2; the differences between the two are minor and do not warrant two separate votes. Therefore, a vote on BOTH amendments will begin now and will last for 48 hours. Delegates will have the option of voting AYE, NAY, or Abstain on each amendment; if both amendments "pass," the amendment which received the largest number of AYE votes will be adopted.

Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[   ] AYE       [   ] NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [   ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 20, 2015, 05:23:00 pm
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[   ] AYE       [ X ] NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[ X ] AYE      [   ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clark Kent on December 20, 2015, 05:34:40 pm
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[   ] AYE       [X] NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[X] AYE      [   ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: bore on December 20, 2015, 05:44:25 pm
Option 1
Nay

Option 2
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on December 20, 2015, 05:50:00 pm
Aye

Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: VPH on December 20, 2015, 06:05:56 pm

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[ X ] AYE       [   ] NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [  X  ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: tmthforu94 on December 20, 2015, 08:03:33 pm
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[   ] AYE       [X] NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [X] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on December 20, 2015, 09:23:27 pm
Option 1: Nay
Option 2: Nay

3/4 is too high a threshold and invalidating such a vote violates our democratic processes.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Classic Conservative on December 21, 2015, 09:16:26 am
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[  ]AYE       [ X ]NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[ X ] AYE      [   ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 21, 2015, 10:24:24 am
Option 1: Nay
Option 2: Nay

3/4 is too high a threshold and invalidating such a vote violates our democratic processes.
Sadly, we're not voting on lowering the threshold - we're only voting to add a turnout filter. I proposed an amendment to lower the threshold to 60% (from 75%) and this was said to be "out of order".


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 21, 2015, 11:45:34 am
As I said earlier to Clyde, you are free to believe that, just as I am free to believe that legalizing secession was the single worst decision made by this Convention. However, the fact of the matter is that both of these issues were settled by democratic votes: it would be neither fair nor efficient to continue to challenge their legitimacy by calling successive votes on the same issue until we get a result that you like.

The circumstances surrounding the vote on the threshold for secession were specifically designed to ensure that the only proposition being tested was the threshold itself. The idea of secession, you will remember, had already been approved by a principle vote; therefore, the delegates' votes were not determined by their support for or opposition to secession. Likewise, the only change being made by the aforementioned vote was the insertion of the 3/4 clause, so it is not possible that the delegates voted for or against based on some other provision. The only logical conclusion is that the 3/4 clause has the support of the majority, and as in any democracy, the majority rules.

It is true, as Clyde noted, that several delegates regrettably failed to vote on the matter. However, the Regulations enacted by the Senate neither impose a quorum nor permit us to establish one, and the Convention wisely elected not to establish such a quorum a few weeks ago. Doing so would allow the minority to block progress at the Convention by refusing to vote when they are outnumbered (much like what happens in the real life U.S. Senate), a prospect we cannot afford to risk. As such, any calls to re-do the vote on the 3/4 threshold because a minority of the Convention failed to vote lack any legal legitimacy. This Convention will not be held hostage by inactivity: I have done, and will continue to do, everything in my power to encourage activity and ensure that delegates do not miss key votes, but if certain individuals choose not to do the jobs they were elected to do, that's their problem. I will not allow progress to be brought to a standstill because some people can't be bothered to meet their commitments.

The bottom line here is that a vote was held, the 3/4 threshold passed, and there is no legitimate procedural reason to conduct another vote on a matter that has been settled by the democratic process. I understand that you and others are unhappy with this result - as I say, you have a right to that opinion - but not getting everything you want is part of democracy. The rules have been carefully followed here; it is time to move on.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 21, 2015, 01:46:31 pm
As I said earlier to Clyde, you are free to believe that, just as I am free to believe that legalizing secession was the single worst decision made by this Convention. However, the fact of the matter is that both of these issues were settled by democratic votes: it would be neither fair nor efficient to continue to challenge their legitimacy by calling successive votes on the same issue until we get a result that you like.

The circumstances surrounding the vote on the threshold for secession were specifically designed to ensure that the only proposition being tested was the threshold itself. The idea of secession, you will remember, had already been approved by a principle vote; therefore, the delegates' votes were not determined by their support for or opposition to secession. Likewise, the only change being made by the aforementioned vote was the insertion of the 3/4 clause, so it is not possible that the delegates voted for or against based on some other provision. The only logical conclusion is that the 3/4 clause has the support of the majority, and as in any democracy, the majority rules.

It is true, as Clyde noted, that several delegates regrettably failed to vote on the matter. However, the Regulations enacted by the Senate neither impose a quorum nor permit us to establish one, and the Convention wisely elected not to establish such a quorum a few weeks ago. Doing so would allow the minority to block progress at the Convention by refusing to vote when they are outnumbered (much like what happens in the real life U.S. Senate), a prospect we cannot afford to risk. As such, any calls to re-do the vote on the 3/4 threshold because a minority of the Convention failed to vote lack any legal legitimacy. This Convention will not be held hostage by inactivity: I have done, and will continue to do, everything in my power to encourage activity and ensure that delegates do not miss key votes, but if certain individuals choose not to do the jobs they were elected to do, that's their problem. I will not allow progress to be brought to a standstill because some people can't be bothered to meet their commitments.

The bottom line here is that a vote was held, the 3/4 threshold passed, and there is no legitimate procedural reason to conduct another vote on a matter that has been settled by the democratic process. I understand that you and others are unhappy with this result - as I say, you have a right to that opinion - but not getting everything you want is part of democracy. The rules have been carefully followed here; it is time to move on.
We held a principle vote on whether succession should be legal, but we didn't hold one on the threshold to pass. I propose that we hold one of the threshold level - where the delegates post a percentage/fraction that should be the threshold level and the average of these figures is taken (and rounded to nearest 5%).

You say that "in any democracy, the majority rules", which I agree with, but then surely 50%+1 is enough on any issue. It's double standards if you think the threshold should be higher on issues that you disagree with.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Senator Cris on December 21, 2015, 03:58:35 pm
Aye on PiT's amendment.
Nay on Clyde's amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 21, 2015, 04:02:48 pm
The purpose of a principle vote is to isolate a question of principle ("should secession be legal?"; "how should the Senate be elected?") from any secondary questions associated with it. When we first voted on secession, as I explained above, we did so through the traditional amendment process; those early amendments failed in part because many delegates who supported a Right to Secede were voting "Nay" over perceived flaws in the proposed amendments. It became clear that differences over how a Region should be allowed to leave the Union was obscuring the question of whether they should be allowed to separate; therefore, Presiding Officer Cris called a principle vote isolating the second question from the first. This vote resulted in a majority in favor of secession.

By contrast, the vote on the 3/4 threshold had none of the competing secondary questions that had plagued the early secession votes. The issue of whether Regions should be allowed to secede had already been settled; all that remained was the process. Unlike the votes on the initial secession amendments, the amendment that established the 3/4 threshold made only one change to the existing text: therefore, delegates were voting on that change alone. Therefore, this vote served the same purpose as a principle vote, despite not being called that in name: to isolate one issue from the rest to ensure a decisive mandate in favor of one position.

Let me reiterate this again: a vote was held, every delegate had a chance to voice their opinion, and a majority of voting delegates approved the amendment to set the threshold for secession at 3/4. The early "votes" on secession were re-done because of procedural missteps on the part of my predecessor that mangled the mandate resulting from those votes; no such missteps were made on the threshold vote. The vote establishing the 3/4 threshold was a principle vote in that it was an up-or-down vote on a single issue.

You say that "in any democracy, the majority rules", which I agree with, but then surely 50%+1 is enough on any issue. It's double standards if you think the threshold should be higher on issues that you disagree with.
Hardly. The issue here is that you are seeking to impose a quorum retroactively because you didn't get the result you wanted. When the vote on the 3/4 threshold was held, there was no rule stating that a majority of sitting delegates was required to pass an amendment (nor does the Convention had the power to make such a rule); therefore, any attempt to call a second vote on those ground is illegal and unconstitutional. This Convention, however, is not seeking to invalidate previous secession referendums by dropping the 3/4 clause out of the sky; rather, we are setting the rules for future generations, which is perfectly compatible with my previous statements on this issue.

The motion to call a principle vote on the threshold for secession is out of order.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 21, 2015, 04:57:57 pm
The purpose of a principle vote is to isolate a question of principle ("should secession be legal?"; "how should the Senate be elected?") from any secondary questions associated with it. When we first voted on secession, as I explained above, we did so through the traditional amendment process; those early amendments failed in part because many delegates who supported a Right to Secede were voting "Nay" over perceived flaws in the proposed amendments. It became clear that differences over how a Region should be allowed to leave the Union was obscuring the question of whether they should be allowed to separate; therefore, Presiding Officer Cris called a principle vote isolating the second question from the first. This vote resulted in a majority in favor of secession.

By contrast, the vote on the 3/4 threshold had none of the competing secondary questions that had plagued the early secession votes. The issue of whether Regions should be allowed to secede had already been settled; all that remained was the process. Unlike the votes on the initial secession amendments, the amendment that established the 3/4 threshold made only one change to the existing text: therefore, delegates were voting on that change alone. Therefore, this vote served the same purpose as a principle vote, despite not being called that in name: to isolate one issue from the rest to ensure a decisive mandate in favor of one position.

Let me reiterate this again: a vote was held, every delegate had a chance to voice their opinion, and a majority of voting delegates approved the amendment to set the threshold for secession at 3/4. The early "votes" on secession were re-done because of procedural missteps on the part of my predecessor that mangled the mandate resulting from those votes; no such missteps were made on the threshold vote. The vote establishing the 3/4 threshold was a principle vote in that it was an up-or-down vote on a single issue.

You say that "in any democracy, the majority rules", which I agree with, but then surely 50%+1 is enough on any issue. It's double standards if you think the threshold should be higher on issues that you disagree with.
Hardly. The issue here is that you are seeking to impose a quorum retroactively because you didn't get the result you wanted. When the vote on the 3/4 threshold was held, there was no rule stating that a majority of sitting delegates was required to pass an amendment (nor does the Convention had the power to make such a rule); therefore, any attempt to call a second vote on those ground is illegal and unconstitutional. This Convention, however, is not seeking to invalidate previous secession referendums by dropping the 3/4 clause out of the sky; rather, we are setting the rules for future generations, which is perfectly compatible with my previous statements on this issue.

The motion to call a principle vote on the threshold for secession is out of order.
I would like to see a piece of legislation that says it's "illegal and unconstitutional", before accepting that statement.

Either way, I won't continue to push - as it could always be reduced at a later date, following the passage of the constitution.

An additional amendment to clarify how a referendum can be called and who can vote. If it goes to a vote on it, I recommend voting on each sub clause separately.
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, [insert which amendment wins current vote here]
  a. A vote may only be called by the regional legislature in the region in question.
  b. The vote shall only involve voters in the region in question.

ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on December 21, 2015, 08:24:36 pm
Option 1  Nay
Option 2  Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 21, 2015, 08:31:09 pm
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[ X ] AYE       [   ] NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [ X ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.



Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 21, 2015, 08:32:19 pm
Option 1: Aye
Option 2: Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: ilikeverin on December 22, 2015, 10:04:54 am
Option 1: Nope
Option 2: Yup

Also, at some point (because I feel like I will forget to do this unless I write it up now), I'd like to introduce an amendment as follows:

Quote
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states currently named Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states currently named Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states currently named Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, and the names of its constituent parts, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clyde1998 on December 22, 2015, 10:28:35 am
Also, at some point (because I feel like I will forget to do this unless I write it up now), I'd like to introduce an amendment as follows:

Quote
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states currently named Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states currently named Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states currently named Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, and the names of its constituent parts, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.
The only issue that I have with that amendment is that it might confuse new players if the names of states change.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 22, 2015, 12:00:39 pm
Also, at some point (because I feel like I will forget to do this unless I write it up now), I'd like to introduce an amendment as follows:

Quote
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states currently named Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states currently named Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states currently named Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, and the names of its constituent parts, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.
The only issue that I have with that amendment is that it might confuse new players if the names of states change.
I agree with Clyde - we want the game to be accessible to new users, and changing too much of the 'base scenario' might complicate that. I would also note that the present Federal Constitution has no such clause, but this has not stopped the Midwest from giving its states alternate names.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on December 22, 2015, 03:01:39 pm
Option 1: No
Option 2: yas


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 22, 2015, 05:20:54 pm
By a vote of 5 Ayes, 9 Nays, and 11 delegates not voting, PiT's Amendment has FAILED.

By a vote of 7 Ayes, 7 Nays, and 11 delegates not voting, Clyde's Amendment has FAILED.



The floor is now open for debate of Ilikeverin's proposed amendment on state nomenclature. As I suspect many delegates will be unavailable for most of the next few days do the upcoming holiday, I will not call a vote on this amendment until Sunday, 12/27 at the earliest, so as to ensure that everyone has a chance to read and critique this proposal. For the record, I object to the amendment (in part to ensure that it is not automatically adopted before the Convention has time to debate the proposal).

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states currently named Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states currently named Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states currently named Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, and the names of its constituent parts, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 22, 2015, 07:20:31 pm
     I understand that the Midwest region has a longstanding tradition of giving its states alternate names, and I support their self-determination in this regard.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on December 23, 2015, 03:49:37 pm
It's bad enough giving the regions carte blanche authority to rename their regions with stupid and ridiculous names, but giving them authority to rename their states with even more stupid names is one of the most ridiculous amendments I have ever seen proposed in my life here on this forum.

Will this madness never end?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 23, 2015, 05:04:58 pm
It's bad enough giving the regions carte blanche authority to rename their regions with stupid and ridiculous names, but giving them authority to rename their states with even more stupid names is one of the most ridiculous amendments I have ever seen proposed in my life here on this forum.

Will this madness never end?

     It's also been the law of the land for over a decade with no real downsides. A major factor in the health and strength of the regions is allowing them to have unique cultures determined by those living there. Stifling that doesn't help.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Prince of Salem on December 23, 2015, 11:09:28 pm
Quote
OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[ X ] AYE       [   ] NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting in favor is less than 1/3 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [ X ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: bore on December 28, 2015, 03:00:10 pm
It's bad enough giving the regions carte blanche authority to rename their regions with stupid and ridiculous names, but giving them authority to rename their states with even more stupid names is one of the most ridiculous amendments I have ever seen proposed in my life here on this forum.

Will this madness never end?

     It's also been the law of the land for over a decade with no real downsides. A major factor in the health and strength of the regions is allowing them to have unique cultures determined by those living there. Stifling that doesn't help.

The law of the land allows regions to rename states but still mandates that the use of the real names be accepted as well for registering people and legislation and so on. I agree with winfield that if that changes there will be serious problems.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 28, 2015, 03:19:46 pm
It's bad enough giving the regions carte blanche authority to rename their regions with stupid and ridiculous names, but giving them authority to rename their states with even more stupid names is one of the most ridiculous amendments I have ever seen proposed in my life here on this forum.

Will this madness never end?

     It's also been the law of the land for over a decade with no real downsides. A major factor in the health and strength of the regions is allowing them to have unique cultures determined by those living there. Stifling that doesn't help.

The law of the land allows regions to rename states but still mandates that the use of the real names be accepted as well for registering people and legislation and so on. I agree with winfield that if that changes there will be serious problems.
This. Allowing the Regions to propose alternate state names for internal purposes is one thing, but mandating that these names totally supplant real life names would create needless confusion, especially if said names are too greatly creative or if the Regions get into a habit of changing them frequently. Not only would this create confusion in the registration process, it could well become a problem in the Statute as well as time goes by. Legislation referring to the State of Frankfurter, for example, will become nearly unreadable if three years later Frankfurter is renamed the People's Republic of Cheese Cake (Who is going to keep track of the name changes and amend the Statue accordingly? We have enough trouble keeping it up to date as it is).

On this particular issue, I think it's best to abide by the status quo. The Regions can still propose the silly names if they want (rejecting this amendment won't change that), and if those names become a longstanding part of Atlasian culture, Congress can vote to recognize them alongside real life names. Allowing the Regions to unilaterally replace the real life names of their constituent states, however, opens the door for a great deal of confusion and chaos that outstrips the novelty benefit of this provision.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on December 28, 2015, 06:41:09 pm
It's bad enough giving the regions carte blanche authority to rename their regions with stupid and ridiculous names, but giving them authority to rename their states with even more stupid names is one of the most ridiculous amendments I have ever seen proposed in my life here on this forum.

Will this madness never end?

     It's also been the law of the land for over a decade with no real downsides. A major factor in the health and strength of the regions is allowing them to have unique cultures determined by those living there. Stifling that doesn't help.

The law of the land allows regions to rename states but still mandates that the use of the real names be accepted as well for registering people and legislation and so on. I agree with winfield that if that changes there will be serious problems.

     Good point, that thought had not occurred to me. I am also concerned about the flipside; would this block the regions from recognizing alternate state names? I am supposing yes, though I do not have the time to look  too far into this now.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 28, 2015, 07:08:01 pm
It's bad enough giving the regions carte blanche authority to rename their regions with stupid and ridiculous names, but giving them authority to rename their states with even more stupid names is one of the most ridiculous amendments I have ever seen proposed in my life here on this forum.

Will this madness never end?

     It's also been the law of the land for over a decade with no real downsides. A major factor in the health and strength of the regions is allowing them to have unique cultures determined by those living there. Stifling that doesn't help.

The law of the land allows regions to rename states but still mandates that the use of the real names be accepted as well for registering people and legislation and so on. I agree with winfield that if that changes there will be serious problems.

     Good point, that thought had not occurred to me. I am also concerned about the flipside; would this block the regions from recognizing alternate state names? I am supposing yes, though I do not have the time to look  too far into this now.

Presumably, the Regions would be free to adopt/recognize alternate names for their constituent states without this amendment, seeing as the Midwest has been doing so for years without any official Constitutional provision protecting that right. Unless we were to adopt a clause explicitly outlawing the use of alternate state names, it is hard to imagine an attempt to end this practice gaining much traction in the Supreme Court. With that in mind, the only effect rejecting this amendment will have is to absolve the federal government of the responsibility to recognize said alternate names in place of the real life names of the states (by my reading, Nyman would remain able to recognize the alternate names alongside real life names).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: ilikeverin on December 29, 2015, 09:20:35 am
I'm entirely fine with allowing the old names to be used for official purposes, voter registration, and so on, so as to make newbies' transition to Atlasia simpler; however, although the Most Serene Republic does have names that it prefers over the antiquated ones of the past, the Atlasian government has repeatedly and frequently refused to acknowledge our preferred names, which this amendment is seeking to redress.  Here's updated language for section v that I hope will rectify peoples' concerns:

Quote
Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, and the official names of its constituent parts, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.  The current names of Regions' constituent parts shall also be acknowledged for official purposes.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on December 29, 2015, 06:37:55 pm
I object to Ilikeverin's amendment. While I don't begrudge the Regions the right to propose alternate names for their constituent states, I do not believe that the federal government should be obliged to recognize those names.

In any event, I feel that this is an issue best settled by ordinary legislation: as it is, we're coming dangerously close to an overly legalistic Constitution such as we have now. The purpose of the Constitution should be to establish a basic framework for the game; all other questions (state names, titles of legislative officers, etc.) should be settled through the legislative process. That way, if mistakes are made, they can be easily fixed by an Act of Congress without need for a formal Constitutional Amendment.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on December 30, 2015, 01:22:38 pm
I as well object to ilikeverin's amendment.

If we are going to grant the regions the right to rename their regions and their constituent states with stupid and ridiculous names, then there is no way that this ludicrousness should be recognized and ratified by Atlasia as official.

This will only cause mass confusion.     


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 01, 2016, 05:56:07 pm
A vote is now open on the amendment proposed by Ilikeverin. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)...
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, and the official names of its constituent parts, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.  The current names of Regions' constituent parts shall also be acknowledged for official purposes.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 01, 2016, 06:06:32 pm
NAY.

My own opinion of this measure aside, this is not an issue that should be addressed in the Constitution. The purpose of a constitution should be to provide a framework - a lattice, if you will - upon which the game can grow and prosper. It should not attempt to anticipate every political question that will confront this Republic, nor should it seek to carve every tradition and cultural custom in stone. Apart from basic political liberties and the structure of the national government, most matters of state should be left to the elected representatives of the national government. The failure of past generations to recognize this is what brought us to this point, and I urge my fellow delegates not to repeat their mistakes by attempting to answer every question in our charter of government.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Clark Kent on January 01, 2016, 06:15:23 pm
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on January 01, 2016, 06:22:43 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: VPH on January 01, 2016, 06:41:32 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Classic Conservative on January 01, 2016, 06:46:15 pm
NAY

  New players will never be able to know all the names, I don't even know what the states in the Midwest are. It'll be too confusing and will result in Constitutional Amendments with the Regional Constitution regularly.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: NeverAgain on January 01, 2016, 07:44:28 pm
Nay. States should be allowed to make their own names, but not be forced to be acknowledged by the Federal Government.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Leinad on January 02, 2016, 01:52:58 am
NAY

Basically this:

States should be allowed to make their own names, but not be forced to be acknowledged by the Federal Government.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 02, 2016, 02:00:55 pm
     Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on January 02, 2016, 03:17:32 pm
Nay

This amendment leads down only one highway, the highway of mass confusion.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: MadmanMotley on January 02, 2016, 03:43:05 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on January 02, 2016, 03:55:17 pm
Nay

I feel that it will become too confusing for new players. I have nothing against the states being renamed in principle, although there should be no requirement for the Federal Government to recognise the changes.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Debating)
Post by: Senator Cris on January 02, 2016, 05:13:02 pm
NAY

Basically this:

States should be allowed to make their own names, but not be forced to be acknowledged by the Federal Government.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on January 02, 2016, 06:02:39 pm
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 02, 2016, 09:03:45 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 02, 2016, 11:50:44 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Prince of Salem on January 03, 2016, 02:07:56 am
Abstain


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 04, 2016, 03:44:03 pm
Nay

Both ClassicConservative and NeverAgain make great points.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: bore on January 04, 2016, 05:07:33 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 04, 2016, 06:04:52 pm
By a vote of 4 Ayes, 11 Nays, one Abstention, and with six delegates not voting and two votes invalid, this amendment has FAILED.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 05, 2016, 07:45:22 pm
Moving on! It seems to me that we have addressed all the potential concerns and suggestions in regards to the structure of the Regions (Section 1 of this Article) and the right to secede (Section 2); what remains is to finalize the rights and limitations of the Regional governments. I therefore propose the following amendment:

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Rights and Limitations)
i. The powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions, are reserved to the Regions respectively, or to the people.
ii. No Region shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation without the express Consent of the Congress.
iii. No Region shall pass any Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, nor pass any Act impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
iv. No Region shall lay any Duty on exports and imports except by necessity for the proper enforcement of its Laws, and then only with the express Consent of the Congress; and in such case the net produce of such shall be conferred to the Federal Treasury.
v. No Region shall lay any Duty of Tonnage, nor grant any Title of Nobility, nor maintain Armed Forces in times of peace, nor issue, coin, or recognize as legal tender any currency but that of the Republic of Atlasia.
vi. No Region may increase the size of its Legislature, Assembly or equivalent body except in the manner prescribed by the Congress.


FOR REFERENCE: The text for Section 3 proposed above has already been adopted in the Regional Powers thread; this amendment merely incorporates it into the appropriate article. I am sure that some of you would like to see changes made before we proceed to a final vote; HOWEVER, because it will be much easier to adopt this amendment and then make changes as necessary that it would be to reject this text and then start again from scratch, I respectfully ask that you refrain from objecting to this amendment. This is by no means a final text nor is it intended to settle every question before us: rather, my objective was to get the text of this Article all in one place so that we can proceed as efficiently as possible.



Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment (though I recommend that you refrain from doing so, for the reasons given above).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Fmr. Pres. Duke on January 06, 2016, 12:51:16 am
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 06, 2016, 05:19:32 pm

     Is that an objection? ;)


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 06, 2016, 08:50:40 pm
Seeing no objection (I think? (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4849697#msg4849697)), this amendment has been ADOPTED.

If anybody has a problem with this Article, particularly Section 3, now would be the time to mention it.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on January 07, 2016, 09:05:40 am
Seeing no objection (I think? (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=220646.msg4849697#msg4849697)), this amendment has been ADOPTED.

If anybody has a problem with this Article, particularly Section 3, now would be the time to mention it.
I think the "potential objection" was a late vote for the previous vote, rather than an objection.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on January 07, 2016, 09:10:00 am
Quote
Section 3 (Rights and Limitations)
vi. No Region may increase the size of its Legislature, Assembly or equivalent body except in the manner prescribed by the Congress.
I think this will need to be debated - purely as I think it limits the ability of the regional legislatures to react to changes in it's electorate and activity levels.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Prince of Salem on January 07, 2016, 04:04:13 pm
Quote
Section 3 (Rights and Limitations)
vi. No Region may increase the size of its Legislature, Assembly or equivalent body except in the manner prescribed by the Congress.
I think this will need to be debated - purely as I think it limits the ability of the regional legislatures to react to changes in it's electorate and activity levels.

Agreed.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 07, 2016, 05:04:13 pm
Quote
Section 3 (Rights and Limitations)
vi. No Region may increase the size of its Legislature, Assembly or equivalent body except in the manner prescribed by the Congress.
I think this will need to be debated - purely as I think it limits the ability of the regional legislatures to react to changes in it's electorate and activity levels.
Agreed.
Yes, absolutely - I think a principle vote is in order here. Any objections?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 07, 2016, 08:02:31 pm
It will inevitably be a necessary construct if we are to have a functioning government that avoids the problems of the past, so hopefully people have grown to understand this by now.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 07, 2016, 10:29:11 pm
I trust that regions will be able to reflect on mistakes in the past and adjust the size of their legislature independently to meet the needs of the region.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Classic Conservative on January 07, 2016, 10:30:35 pm
I trust that regions will be able to reflect on mistakes in the past and adjust the size of their legislature independently to meet the needs of the region.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Leinad on January 08, 2016, 09:08:01 am
Yes, I agree, a principle vote is most definitely in order.

I trust that regions will be able to reflect on mistakes in the past and adjust the size of their legislature independently to meet the needs of the region.

Thirded.

Why is the federal government able to decide what's best for the regional governments, but the regional governments don't have that ability? Are they inherently less capable of solving their own problems than the federal government? Surely, if anything, they would be better!

I recommend a self-adjusting system, like I proposed earlier for the House but was rejected, for regional legislatures. One that automatically contracts if the activity just isn't there, and expands if there's an abundance of candidates. Of course, it should be the job of each legislature to decide what is best for them.

With all due respect, Mr. President, you're acting as if giving the regions this power will cause the earth to fly out of it's orbit, or cats and dogs to rain sideways. "The problems of the past" were not caused, in any way, by letting regional governments define their own basic properties.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on January 08, 2016, 11:42:41 am
I do not mind some regional latitude, however, my fear is if given too much authority, they will tend to go overboard, rather than steer a reasonable course.

We already all know, for example, that the regions are going to be renaming themselves with silly and ridiculous names and titles for office holders.

Some restrictions should be put in place which the regions will have to follow and adhere to.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 08, 2016, 09:15:14 pm
A vote is now open to strike Section 3, clause vi of this Article. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

For reference, here is the full text of the clause that will be repealed should this motion pass:
Quote
vi. No Region may increase the size of its Legislature, Assembly or equivalent body except in the manner prescribed by the Congress.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: NeverAgain on January 08, 2016, 09:51:00 pm
Nay, I think legislatures must be able to eb and flow with the population at the time. That being said some restrictions must be in place (like regional referendum) to stop unruly assemblies from getting out of hand. Mr. President, maybe this was already addressed, but what is the "manner prescribed by Congress" for regional legislature change, as this may clear up some things for me.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: VPH on January 08, 2016, 10:11:54 pm
NAY! Regional legislatures need to be able to act to shift with their population/activity.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 08, 2016, 10:41:20 pm
Mr. President, maybe this was already addressed, but what is the "manner prescribed by Congress" for regional legislature change...?
As there is no clause in the current Constitution that allows the national legislature to make such a prescription and, in any case, no "Congress" to make it, there is no legally-established response to this question. The idea was to establish the principle of federal oversight of the Regional legislatures and allow lawmakers to beat out the nitty-gritty details after the first Congress has been elected. Presumably, the formula proposed by Congress would provide for the expansion and contraction of Regional legislative bodies based on population (this is what Griffin proposed back in October).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 08, 2016, 11:40:16 pm
The single biggest and initial deterioration of activity in this game was fueled by regions that could not properly govern themselves with respect to ensuring that there weren't too many or too few elected positions available. This is why we're here, ladies and gentlemen. There are too many offices in the game. That problem rests solely with the Regions, of which there are too many and often too many offices within each.

The Regions most definitely do not possess nor will possess the foresight or ability to properly "reflect upon the mistakes of the past", because I've been screaming about the need to reduce the proliferation of offices for over two years and not a single Region properly moved to ameliorate this problem when it was a problem of both the past and the present. Regions are rather selfish entities in terms of how they operate; they don't often regulate themselves based on the broader framework of how all of their individual actions impact the game, and more often than not, they don't even regulate themselves based on the very same problems when confined within their own boundaries.

If we don't have a governing mechanism for regional office management that can be based off of a sensible and uniform formula, then there is no damn point of this convention and no damn point of us being here. The biggest problem of the past and present will continue to be the problems of the future. Those of you who haven't been around long enough to truly observe this need to listen to those of us who have been. If the Regions' numbers of offices are not regulated, then we are going to end up with more offices in the game than we have currently, because we have expanded the legislative branch and the Regions are not going to be unanimous, sensible and conscious about this fact in the long-term. Even if the current generation somehow does manage to do it, people years from now will not understand the problem and will replicate the same issues we face now without this regulation.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 09, 2016, 12:05:27 am
After reading the President's arguments and weighing them my own concerns, Nay.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Leinad on January 09, 2016, 02:05:14 am
WAIT...and this may sound stupid...but...what is "nay" and what is "aye?"

Because NeverAgain and VPH sounded like they agree with me (that the clause should be struck, that regional governments should be allowed to increase the number of seats in their own legislature) but they said "nay," and if we're voting "to strike" it, wouldn't an "aye" be to support striking it, and giving regions the ability to increase their legislature size?

Or maybe I've misunderstood things.

Anyway, aye to strike it and let regions control their own legislature seat number, nay to include the part restricting region's this ability.

I'll edit this to make my vote bold and colorful when Truman clarifies.



The Regions most definitely do not possess nor will possess the foresight or ability to properly "reflect upon the mistakes of the past", because I've been screaming about the need to reduce the proliferation of offices for over two years and not a single Region properly moved to ameliorate this problem when it was a problem of both the past and the present. Regions are rather selfish entities in terms of how they operate; they don't often regulate themselves based on the broader framework of how all of their individual actions impact the game, and more often than not, they don't even regulate themselves based on the very same problems when confined within their own boundaries.

But is that the fault of the system, or failings on individual members of regional governments?

You're acting as if this is the equivalent of eating just one potato chip; that it is literally impossible for a regional government to make responsible decisions, or decrease their legislature size (even though I believe the South did that at some point--it used to be 5, now it's 3).

Quote
Those of you who haven't been around long enough to truly observe this need to listen to those of us who have been.

Fair enough, although experience doesn't always define truth. I'd like to hear the opinion of veteran Atlasians who are generally in favor of regional control on this.

You know me, I don't think that the federal governments need to micromanage the regions, or should dictate their basic properties. I think it's a good thing if different regions do things differently--maybe one region has an auto-adjusting legislature like I've proposed, another has 3 members elected at once, another has 5 elected in two classes. And this works with the names, too--one region has a "Legislature," another has an "Assembly," another has a "Council." You get the idea.

If some people (not naming names, and I wouldn't even put you in this category, Adam) made the rules, we'd have 3 completely identical regions. And at what cost? Well, in addition to boredom, we'll have the cost of never seeing what works best. Who knows, maybe we decide some great mechanism for an auto-adjusting legislature, and it ends up being adopted by the house after great success in one of the regions.

Quote
If the Regions' numbers of offices are not regulated, then we are going to end up with more offices in the game than we have currently,

False, unless the regions up the legislatures to larger than the Senate itself.

We cut out two regions. That eliminates a lot of offices right there. Of course some of those were added back by bicameralism, but I believe there's still wiggle room to increase the number if the rightfully elected legislatures of a region (or even the people itself) decide more seats are appropriate.

Quote
Even if the current generation somehow does manage to do it, people years from now will not understand the problem and will replicate the same issues we face now without this regulation.

One of us will be around to tell them how it was done back in the day, surely.

Back in the 1700s (and no, I'm not doing a filibuster, although I wish that was possible in text-form--I'd be great at it), after the original Constitutional Convention, a citizen asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government they had decided upon. "A republic," he responded. "If you can keep it."

Bare with me. It'll make sense.

There is difficulty in maintaining any type of freedom. Humans are prone to mess stuff up, and then prone to proposing more government (or, in this case, federal) control to clean up the mess. But that takes away the wonderful qualities freedom provides--the flexibility to improve things, the clarity that a basic understanding of rights and responsibilities provides, etcetera. I'm speaking in general terms so that applies to both my anecdote and now--was it the best idea, back then, to just start out with a dictatorship to avoid the risk that a republic goes wrong?

Of course not, just as it is absurd to eliminate nearly all forms of regional autonomy for fear that the regions misuse it.

I think that made enough sense. I think you all understand the premise of my argument, though, even if Storytime with Leinad didn't work.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Classic Conservative on January 09, 2016, 06:40:50 am
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Talleyrand on January 09, 2016, 10:04:24 am
This isn't a question of "regional rights", but whether you can create a sustainable number of offices. You cannot just assume that people will be reasonable in the future and not create an excess number of legislative positions; look where that has gotten this game today.

I strongly encourage anyone, regardless of political affiliation, to vote NAY and keep this clause.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on January 09, 2016, 10:11:25 am
NAY


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 09, 2016, 12:17:23 pm
After reading through the debate, I think there has been some confusion over what we are voting on. I change my vote to Aye, but considering the confusion that has ensued, I urge Truman to clarify and restart the vote.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on January 09, 2016, 12:22:53 pm
Aye to it being removed.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 09, 2016, 01:47:17 pm
Okay, seeing as there seems to be a bit of confusion as to what, exactly, is being voted on, I'm going to restart this vote. Delegates have 48 hours to vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain on the following amendment (proposed and objected to by myself to make the object of this vote more clear):

Quote
Section 3 (Rights and Limitations)
...
vi. No Region may increase the size of its Legislature, Assembly or equivalent body except in the manner prescribed by the Congress.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on January 09, 2016, 01:54:43 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 09, 2016, 01:59:00 pm
     Aye. The people in the regions can look out for themselves. We don't need to be treating them like small children.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on January 09, 2016, 02:03:41 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 09, 2016, 02:13:39 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: ilikeverin on January 09, 2016, 02:21:44 pm
Yup


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: NeverAgain on January 09, 2016, 03:09:27 pm
Aye.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on January 09, 2016, 05:53:41 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: VPH on January 09, 2016, 06:27:44 pm
AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 09, 2016, 06:34:02 pm
NAY

You guys are going to kill the future of this game with your ignorance.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN on January 09, 2016, 08:27:23 pm
Changing vote (previous voting) to AYE


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 09, 2016, 10:14:20 pm
The people in the regions can look out for themselves. We don't need to be treating them like small children.

No, they literally cannot: the proof that such is true is the entire reason why we're having to have this process occur in the first place. You guys were wrong two years ago; I was right. You're wrong today; I'm right. Unfortunately, I'll only get to brag with evidence about being right today after we've implemented yet another ed-up government and it comes to fruition once again.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: NeverAgain on January 09, 2016, 11:58:22 pm
The people in the regions can look out for themselves. We don't need to be treating them like small children.

No, they literally cannot: the proof that such is true is the entire reason why we're having to have this process occur in the first place. You guys were wrong two years ago; I was right. You're wrong today; I'm right. Unfortunately, I'll only get to brag with evidence about being right today after we've implemented yet another ed-up government and it comes to fruition once again.
Mr. President, would you mind explaining the benefits of the Federal Government controlling legislatures instead of Regions? I voted Aye to this being repealed due to the non-specificity of the "manner prescribed by Congress" could you maybe explain to me what this would entail and why this is so vital?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 10, 2016, 12:43:28 am
The people in the regions can look out for themselves. We don't need to be treating them like small children.

No, they literally cannot: the proof that such is true is the entire reason why we're having to have this process occur in the first place. You guys were wrong two years ago; I was right. You're wrong today; I'm right. Unfortunately, I'll only get to brag with evidence about being right today after we've implemented yet another ed-up government and it comes to fruition once again.
Mr. President, would you mind explaining the benefits of the Federal Government controlling legislatures instead of Regions? I voted Aye to this being repealed due to the non-specificity of the "manner prescribed by Congress" could you maybe explain to me what this would entail and why this is so vital?

I mean, I have explained this multiple times throughout this effort and in the two years prior to this, but it boils down to a very simple concept: there have been too many offices in this game, the Regions have been the sole cause of this (which is why consolidation was necessary above all else), every Region operates based on its own desires and opinions, they cannot be trusted to make the right nor expedient decisions in this area, and all of that negatively impacts the game at-large.

Even if an individual Region is able to justify expanding its legislature at a given point, that expansion has an impact on the rest of the game. In a scenario where each Region's seats are regulated, people who believe there isn't enough competition or ability for them to run in a given Region will naturally gravitate elsewhere; this "backfill" prevents the opposite problem from developing in other Regions. In a scenario where each Region can regulate its own seats, said Region will expand its seats, which more often than not will prevent other Regions from having potentially contrary effects ameliorated.

It's easier said than done...saying Regions will just fix the problem themselves.

First of all, history does not suggest that this is the rule, but rather, that it is the exception. If it were the rule, then the problem of inactivity and empty offices would have never been as big of a problem as it has been. Yet, even during the peaks of activity in the game, there have been anywhere from one to three Regions with serious activity problems. The only time during my nearly four years (!?!) in this game that this hasn't been a problem was for about six months, from September 2012 to March 2013.

Secondly, activity can ebb and flow. I tend to think that with fewer Regions, the problem might have less variance in the future, but there is still the issue of how population changes can be massive from year to year, season to season, and how that will justify expansion or contraction in a relatively rapid fashion. If a Region were to be responsible, it might very well need to expand and subsequently contract the number of seats over a period of six months to one year: that's three separate changes. It creates an array of surface-level problems, and that before you get to the issues of inactivity and competition - and that's also assuming that the Region actually has the common sense and resolve to act on the matter in the first place. With a formula in place, it's easily handled.

My ideal proposal in terms of specifics was really simple. You set three groupings: <25% of the game's population, 25-40% of the game's population, and >40% of the game's population. Every two months, the Census is consulted and the seat allocations are made based on that. The <25% and >40% groups have the same number of seats. This means if a Region becomes too small or too large, the number of seats is reduced to discourage clumping of citizens and a drain from other Regions. I'm confident that exact formula or something very close to it would emerge. It's also perfectly reasonable to not formally encode the exact procedure in the Constitution, because that's overly-restrictive in the event large elements of governmental or regional structure change in the future.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Leinad on January 10, 2016, 05:17:42 am
Aye!



I'll try not to clutter this up with another wall of text (I had a long rant typed out, by the way--I thankfully used the nifty "backspace" function on that), but a few things can't go without addressing:

The people in the regions can look out for themselves. We don't need to be treating them like small children.
No, they literally cannot: the proof that such is true is the entire reason why we're having to have this process occur in the first place. You guys were wrong two years ago; I was right. You're wrong today; I'm right. Unfortunately, I'll only get to brag with evidence about being right today after we've implemented yet another ed-up government and it comes to fruition once again.

If you're saying the regions have a complete incapability to get it right, what on earth gives the federal government the power to not fudge everything up just as bad? I mean, it's roughly the same people, unless you're going to say a new level of consciousness is achieved upon election to the federal government.


Which is why you enact a proactive auto-adjusting system. If a region feels it can increase the number of seats, it's not bound to keep it forever. Hell, it can change it next election--it can even pre-program into law the mechanism to automatically do that!

Quote
My ideal proposal in terms of specifics was really simple. You set three groupings: <25% of the game's population, 25-40% of the game's population, and >40% of the game's population. Every two months, the Census is consulted and the seat allocations are made based on that. The <25% and >40% groups have the same number of seats. This means if a Region becomes too small or too large, the number of seats is reduced to discourage clumping of citizens and a drain from other Regions. I'm confident that exact formula or something very close to it would emerge. It's also perfectly reasonable to not formally encode the exact procedure in the Constitution, because that's overly-restrictive in the event large elements of governmental or regional structure change in the future.

Perhaps a couple flaws of mine are a lack of experience in Atlasia, and a tendency to value philosophical arguments over interpreting facts. So I'll try the other route:

Last September, 0 candidates ran for the Southern Legislature, but the most recent Census report at that time (taken by yourself) had 26 citizens in the region. This time, Clyde's most recent census report has 24 people. So, there's been a net decrease in population over the 4 months since

But this time, with slightly less residents, 5 candidates are running.

Your plan seems to rest on the assumption that census data and activity always perfectly correlate. Hopefully I have displayed to my fellow delegates that this is not the case.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: bore on January 10, 2016, 07:36:50 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on January 10, 2016, 10:51:59 pm
NAY

There needs to be some controls in place to prevent this game  from going completely overboard.

What do you plan on doing, keep holding re-votes until you get the results you are looking for?


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 10, 2016, 11:49:26 pm
If you're saying the regions have a complete incapability to get it right, what on earth gives the federal government the power to not fudge everything up just as bad? I mean, it's roughly the same people, unless you're going to say a new level of consciousness is achieved upon election to the federal government.

There are more opportunities for them to get it wrong. It's four dynamics (3 Regions + Federal) versus one. It's akin to facing a choice where you install four separate parts - each with effective obsolesce - or one part. Considering that even just one Region getting it wrong will impact the entirety of the game (as I explained above with respect to population distribution), there is a vested interest in the game at-large giving this power to a centralized entity that can handle it more efficiently, rapidly and universally. The game's residents as a whole don't have a vessel through which they can unilaterally demand change if a particular Region has too few or too many offices; only the residents of that Region can require action to be taken - unless there is a federal solution.

Which is why you enact a proactive auto-adjusting system. If a region feels it can increase the number of seats, it's not bound to keep it forever. Hell, it can change it next election--it can even pre-program into law the mechanism to automatically do that!

Yes, and the only way you can have a "proactive auto-adjusting system" is for it to exist at the federal level. What you're actually advocating for is the lack of a proactive auto-adjusting system, with the wish that each Region will voluntarily and independently adopt such on their own. However, there are genuine arguments against this - even if all of the Regions did adopt such - because the formulas could be out of sync with one another and could still result in way too many regional offices as an aggregate to be in existence. The likelihood of them all adopting identical measurements is not guaranteed, and that's the whole point: the regulation needs to be standardized in order to ensure a given Region's office allocation does not indirectly impact competition or the lack thereof in another Region. With only three Regions in the new incarnation, this dynamic is going to be a lot more relevant than it is currently with five (it's quite irrelevant currently). The ideal is to say, "this is the maximum number of regional (legislative) offices that can exist in the game; population distribution will then determine how many each Region gets". It's almost like redistricting in a way. Your method does not set such a standard.

Perhaps a couple flaws of mine are a lack of experience in Atlasia, and a tendency to value philosophical arguments over interpreting facts. So I'll try the other route:

Last September, 0 candidates ran for the Southern Legislature, but the most recent Census report at that time (taken by yourself) had 26 citizens in the region. This time, Clyde's most recent census report has 24 people. So, there's been a net decrease in population over the 4 months since

But this time, with slightly less residents, 5 candidates are running.

Your plan seems to rest on the assumption that census data and activity always perfectly correlate. Hopefully I have displayed to my fellow delegates that this is not the case.

Yes, your argument is inherently philosophical and ideological in nature, and not based on the actual game mechanics that we have encountered and will encounter. Your assessment is also based on an isolated instance and is rather subjective. In the aggregate and over the long-term, more people nationally tends to lead to more activity; fewer people nationally tends to lead to less activity. The same applies for competition. It's also not ideal to isolate one particular Region for this assessment: we're building a new game and having to factor in national dynamics. However, if we're going to isolate individual data-points and specific periods of time, then consider the following: this is arguably the deadest the game has been in at least the past four years, and it's also the least populated the game has been in the past four years. The period in which it had the most activity (late 2012 to early 2013) was the period in which the game had the most players. There are going to be outliers and exceptions, but a regression analysis (if we had quantifiable data-points for activity and population for each period in time) would show this to be largely true.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 11, 2016, 02:03:26 pm
NAY

It's interesting that some have brought up the South as an example of how the Regions can handle this themselves, considering that just days ago the Southern Legislature was on the verge of expanding its membership to unsustainable levels (and would have done so had I not spent a good chunk of my weekend explaining to them why this was an utterly horrible idea).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 11, 2016, 03:46:07 pm
By a vote of 8 Ayes, 5 Nays, and with ten delegates not voting, this amendment has PASSED.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 12, 2016, 02:01:59 am
Aye for the record. I trust the regions to decide the number of their legislative assemblies.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on January 12, 2016, 11:58:27 am
Nay for the record.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Prince of Salem on January 12, 2016, 03:37:12 pm
Aye for the record. I trust the regions to decide the number of their legislative assemblies.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 12, 2016, 03:40:58 pm
Would everybody be okay with a final vote on this? Having dealt with 3.6, the rest seems pretty uncontroversial and/or has already been settled by previous votes/amendments.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 12, 2016, 07:19:40 pm
Aye for the record. I trust the regions to decide the number of their legislative assemblies.

Literally the majority of the reason we are here is that we cannot "trust" them to handle this task effectively, and because of the failed little experiment of "muh regions" that infused this game with way too much inflation office-wise.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Leinad on January 12, 2016, 10:29:49 pm
It's interesting that some have brought up the South as an example of how the Regions can handle this themselves, considering that just days ago the Southern Legislature was on the verge of expanding its membership to unsustainable levels (and would have done so had I not spent a good chunk of my weekend explaining to them why this was an utterly horrible idea).

Well...uh...I can't exactly say you're not not incorrect...

There are more opportunities for them to get it wrong. It's four dynamics (3 Regions + Federal) versus one. It's akin to facing a choice where you install four separate parts - each with effective obsolesce - or one part. Considering that even just one Region getting it wrong will impact the entirety of the game (as I explained above with respect to population distribution), there is a vested interest in the game at-large giving this power to a centralized entity that can handle it more efficiently, rapidly and universally. The game's residents as a whole don't have a vessel through which they can unilaterally demand change if a particular Region has too few or too many offices; only the residents of that Region can require action to be taken - unless there is a federal solution.

But with your method there's 1 group that can get it really wrong. And I still don't think the entire universe will blow up if 1 region has a couple more legislative seats than they should.

Should there be some sort of federal rules? Maybe. Perhaps a mechanism to overrule something if a region gets out of hand. But simply banning them from increasing the number of seats goes too far.

Quote
Yes, and the only way you can have a "proactive auto-adjusting system" is for it to exist at the federal level. What you're actually advocating for is the lack of a proactive auto-adjusting system, with the wish that each Region will voluntarily and independently adopt such on their own. However, there are genuine arguments against this - even if all of the Regions did adopt such - because the formulas could be out of sync with one another and could still result in way too many regional offices as an aggregate to be in existence. The likelihood of them all adopting identical measurements is not guaranteed, and that's the whole point: the regulation needs to be standardized in order to ensure a given Region's office allocation does not indirectly impact competition or the lack thereof in another Region. With only three Regions in the new incarnation, this dynamic is going to be a lot more relevant than it is currently with five (it's quite irrelevant currently). The ideal is to say, "this is the maximum number of regional (legislative) offices that can exist in the game; population distribution will then determine how many each Region gets". It's almost like redistricting in a way. Your method does not set such a standard.

Of course they will not do identical things--that's the point. Some will have more success than others, and if a region is bringing everyone else down I would hope good citizens will point it out to them and they would fix the problem. Unless the region is entirely occupied by people literally trying to destroy Atlasia, I'd wager they'd see the light.

Quote
Yes, your argument is inherently philosophical and ideological in nature, and not based on the actual game mechanics that we have encountered and will encounter. Your assessment is also based on an isolated instance and is rather subjective.

No, it's an example. I'm not basing my argument on it.

Quote
In the aggregate and over the long-term, more people nationally tends to lead to more activity; fewer people nationally tends to lead to less activity. The same applies for competition. It's also not ideal to isolate one particular Region for this assessment: we're building a new game and having to factor in national dynamics. However, if we're going to isolate individual data-points and specific periods of time, then consider the following: this is arguably the deadest the game has been in at least the past four years, and it's also the least populated the game has been in the past four years. The period in which it had the most activity (late 2012 to early 2013) was the period in which the game had the most players. There are going to be outliers and exceptions, but a regression analysis (if we had quantifiable data-points for activity and population for each period in time) would show this to be largely true.

Of course it's generally true, but I think it's more accurate to measure it to candidates running. However, if you do that you can't really standardize it. And I get why you want to standardize it, sure. I understand the benefits of that. I just disagree--I think that it adds more to the game if the regions can control their own legislature size.

I'm glad that the majority of this Convention (that voted) agrees.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 14, 2016, 06:15:32 pm
Seeing no further debate, I motion for a final vote on this Article. Delegates have 24 hours to object.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 15, 2016, 05:39:08 pm
Seeing no objection, a FINAL VOTE is now open on this Article. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

Quote
ARTICLE [TBD]
Section 1 (The Regions)
i. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions.
ii. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
iii. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
iv. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
v. Each Region shall have the sole authority to designate its Title, and the Titles of the officers of its government, such as they will be recognized by the Republic of Atlasia in all official acts and processes.

Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from this Republic but by a 3/4 vote of the citizens thereof, nor shall any Region, state, or other entity declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

Section 3 (Rights and Limitations)
i. The powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions, are reserved to the Regions respectively, or to the people.
ii. No Region shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation without the express Consent of the Congress.
iii. No Region shall pass any Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, nor pass any Act impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
iv. No Region shall lay any Duty on exports and imports except by necessity for the proper enforcement of its Laws, and then only with the express Consent of the Congress; and in such case the net produce of such shall be conferred to the Federal Treasury.
v. No Region shall lay any Duty of Tonnage, nor grant any Title of Nobility, nor maintain Armed Forces in times of peace, nor issue, coin, or recognize as legal tender any currency but that of the Republic of Atlasia.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Classic Conservative on January 15, 2016, 05:40:48 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Chief Justice windjammer on January 15, 2016, 05:49:19 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: NeverAgain on January 15, 2016, 05:54:45 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Clyde1998 on January 15, 2016, 06:02:36 pm
Nay


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 15, 2016, 07:00:23 pm
AYE!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 15, 2016, 07:14:34 pm
     Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: VPH on January 15, 2016, 07:22:21 pm
Nay as a protest vote on the idea of 3 regions and not 4 like I've wanted all along


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: tmthforu94 on January 15, 2016, 07:27:27 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Biden/Abrams Voter on January 15, 2016, 09:27:32 pm
Nay as a protest vote, because we have stripped the biggest individual enforcement mechanism in this document designed to prevent the problems that brought us here in the first place, and history will vindicate me yet again.


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on January 16, 2016, 12:20:01 am
Nay,

Sections 2 and 3 are fine by me but Section 1 stands in complete opposition to what I've fought for. That would be the maintaining our current 5 region map (give or take small tweaks).


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Leinad on January 16, 2016, 12:24:54 am
AYE!


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Justice Blair on January 16, 2016, 08:09:41 am
aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Senator Cris on January 16, 2016, 05:45:53 pm
Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Lincoln Republican on January 16, 2016, 10:52:35 pm
It's not perfect, we are giving regions license to be victims of their own stupidity, but

Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Prince of Salem on January 18, 2016, 12:36:49 am
It's not perfect, we are giving regions license to be victims of their own stupidity, but

Aye


Title: Re: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (Voting on Amendment)
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on January 18, 2016, 01:41:26 pm
By a vote of 10 Ayes, 4 Nays, and with one vote invalid and eight delegates not voting, this Article has been ADOPTED.

As such, I hereby declare debate to be CLOSED in this thread.