People's Referendum Amendment [Failed]

[Јas]

For Jas:  This bill goes into spot number two:

Thanks

This is an interesting idea.

How about instead of 20% of the total population that it be done through regions?  Like if one region passes a resolution calling for a referenda and another region passes a resolution concur, then it qualifies for a National Referendum.  It'd give the regions another interesting power and I think that would be good and fun.

A very good idea

Would a Senator be so kind as to introduce the following amendment (ideally as a friendly amendment) -

That the amendment be changed to read as follows:
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be created to read as follows:

Whence legislation becomes officially enacted, a national referendum shall be held on the legislation whensoever 3 regions pass resolutions calling for such a referendum within 2 months of the passage of said legislation.

When the Secretary of Forum Affairs recieves notification from at least 3 Governors that such resolutions have been passed, the Secretary shall organise a special referendum on the legislation on the next weekend falling not less than 4 days from the date on which he verified that the above requirements were met.

The question put to he people shall be a simple approval or disapproval of the legislation. A simple majority of the people voting against the legislation shall render it null and void.

[Јas]

This really isn't a problem facing us as long as we have active senators, someone can just ask me to propose a bill, it's much easier

But this is to overrule a bill passed, not to propose legislation (that's a different part of the forum affair's agenda).

[Јas]

Why, Mr. President, should we give a check on Senatorial powers to the legions of dead red avatar voters that presently populate our midst?  That is precisely what this amendment will do. 

It is enough that we have to deal with them every election, but with this amendment any controversial bill that may pass this assembly will be subject to someone's GOTV effort.

Dead red avatar voters? Really?
I don't think that such a legion truly exists in Atlasia today. And even if there are some such people on the voter rolls, they are hardly regular voters and certainly not controlling Atlasian election outcomes - there are more than enough Senators who one would think would be anathema to their ideals present in the chamber.

(I would support a tightening of the voter rolls, btw - though when I tried to do such in a previous Senate, I encountered considerable difficulty.)

If this bill is to take away power for the senate, something we very little of to begin with due to the threat of a veto I wholeheartedly oppose,

I'm going to need further explanation on this. As far as I can see the Senate is the only body with any power. Plus, just how many vetoes have you encountered during your time in the Senate?

what is the purpose of having an elected senate if any law they make can simply be thrown out by the president or the people?  If this bill, however, were to state that the law could be voided if agree upon by three out of the five regions, I would consider supporting it.  However, I think that giving omnipotent power to heavily populated regions like the Northeast would be a disadvantage to a small populated region such as the Mideast.

To void a bill, (assuming the Senate accepts the amendment I wish to be put forward) three regions would have to motion for a referendum and then a majority of people would have to vote against the bill - it's hardly likely to lead to an overriding of all Senate business, nor do I see how it conveys any overdue power to any particular region.


This proposal aims (as part of the broader package of initiatives) to increase the ordinary Atlasian citizen's awareness of Senate ongoings and general participation. It will hopefully (should the amendment be put forward and passed) lead to an increase in regional activity also - something that has suffered greatly over the past year.

[Јas]

I don't think we have the participation levels that are high enough for regular elections, let alone attempts for a referendum. I will be opposing this amendment.

This amendment is an attempt to increase voter interest in Senate affairs and encourage participation in the legislative process. It will hopefully encourage an occasional campaign in the Elections Board beyond the normal election contests.

I would urge you to reconsider.

If people can challenge what happens in the Senate, they have more reason to check up on what we're doing in here.  That isn't a bad thing.

Exactly (And thanks for introducing the amendment.)

[Јas]

Current Tally on Ebowed's Amendment
Aye: 2 (Ebowed; Brandon)
Nay: 3 (Phil; PBrunsel; Lewis)
Absent: 2 (Al; Earl)
Yet to Vote: 3 (DWTL; Rob; Sam)

[Јas]

Revised Tally on Ebowed's Amendment
Aye: 2 (Ebowed; Brandon)
Nay: 4 (Phil; PBrunsel; Lewis; DWTL)
Abstain: 1 (Sam)
Absent: 2 (Al; Earl)
Yet to Vote: 1 (Rob)

[Јas]

Nay

However I support the idea of having 4 out of 5 regions like amendments

So, you're saying with this vote that amending the proposal such that 3 regions must push for a referendum would not be an improvement on the current text, but that necessitating 4 regions would?

Surely if you favoured the regional approach you should vote Aye here and seek another amendment to increase the regional requirement to 4?

[Јas]

Re-Revised Tally on Ebowed's Amendment
Aye: 4 (Ebowed; Brandon; DWTL; Sam)
Nay: 3 (Phil; PBrunsel; Lewis)
Absent: 2 (Al; Earl)
Yet to Vote: 1 (Rob)

[Јas]

With a 4-4 tie here, the tie-breaking vote thus goes to the VP.

I vote in favour of the amendment.

[Јas]

I have a question:  What are the guidelines for a Region to pass a resolution, or is that set up by the Region - and how exactly so?

To my understanding, the regions each have their own ways and means of passing propositions/initiatives/resolutions/etc, derived from their own constitutions.

[Јas]

On this amendment, I would say that setting the bar at 4 regions is a very tall order. As it is, it will not be easy to get any resolution passed in within the given timeframe.

Setting the level at 4 regions would seem to me to mean that an almost certain majority of people would be against the legislation. If this amendment passes, I think serious consideration ought to be given to a further amendment declaring that the passage of a resolution in 4 regions within the timeframe would be sufficient in itself to overturn the legislation in question.

[Јas]

On this amendment, I would say that setting the bar at 4 regions is a very tall order. As it is, it will not be easy to get any resolution passed in within the given timeframe.

Setting the level at 4 regions would seem to me to mean that an almost certain majority of people would be against the legislation. If this amendment passes, I think serious consideration ought to be given to a further amendment declaring that the passage of a resolution in 4 regions within the timeframe would be sufficient in itself to overturn the legislation in question.

Overturning a law should not be easy, that is the point of this amendment

It should not be easy and I defy anyone to say that getting a resolution passed in 3 regions and then suceeding in a national referendum would be an easy task.

My point is that increasing the requirement to 4 regions, largely renders the need for a subsequent referendum redundant.

[Јas]

I would recommend a Nay vote on this amendment simply because certain regions (such as the Midwest) do not hold monthly ballots. Requiring a one month time limit would therefore mean that even trying to pass a resolution in certain regions would be impossible due to existing regional systems for passing such resolutions.

[Јas]

I'll take your word for it Jas,

I've always thought this game would be simpler if everyone just did what I said

[Јas]

This measure would have presented an opportunity to promote active citizenship, to promote interest in government and increase activity and political campaigning among the general populus.

It seems some castigated this as rather than any of the above, an attempt to undermine the Senate. Some felt that this would have fatally undercut the productiveness of government. I believe such claims to have been illjudged and fail to see the potential benefits this scheme offered.

I thank the District 5 and Pacific Senators for their support of this measure - it has been noted and appreciated. I sincerely hope to see the Senators who opposed this amendment produce ideas to help bolster political involvement and interest outside of this chamber.

[Јas]

I might have voted for the original Amendment (despite my misgivings about that style of politics, the possibility of more involvement from the population as a whole might, just might, have been able to swing my vote. Not that it would have mattered), but I'm not voting for a piece Regional Fetish legislation.

Whilest we've seen a rise in population recently, we still see a continuous decline in regional activity. This game profits from activity and interest at that level. Without it the only forum for political activity is effectively this very body. The regions are particularly important to introducing newbies into Atlasia's political life and also at maintaining interest and activity amongst the population as a whole between federal elections.

Providing an extra outlet for regional activity through this measure was never going to be a panacea for regional decline, but it could certainly have helped. I am genuinely disappointed that so many Senators chose to ignore the potential benefits and focus instead on diluting the measure of any worth before voting against it.

Finally, I would also say that every Senator's vote matters. Further, there are certain leading voices in this Senate whose vote matters even more within the Senate's blocs. I needn't tell you that your vote is influential for other members of the left.