New Mexico - Montana Regional Bill

[Joe Republic]

I propose this amendment.

The following will be added:

Clause IV
The Senate approves the transfer of the states of Virginia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma to the Southeast Region.

If by some miracle it is found to be constitutional, I strongly urge the Senate to kill this amendment.  I won't sit back and watch my region get eaten away by land-hungry Southerners.

[Joe Republic]

OK fair enough.  I'll be keeping an eye on this bill, but I'll also let it run its course.

For the record, I'm not going to be bull-headed about this.  I plan to involve the citizens of the affected states in my decision.

[Joe Republic]

OK fair enough.  I'll be keeping an eye on this bill, but I'll also let it run its course.

For the record, I'm not going to be bull-headed about this.  I plan to involve the citizens of the affected states in my decision.

That's fine.  You must realize though, that in Kentucky, both Ian and Southpark Republican have supported the transfer of Kentucky to the southeast region.  I don't know about Virginia, but the only people who have responded on the matter, AuH20 and A18 have supported it, to the best of my knowledge.  As well, Oklahoma's only resident, BushOklahoma, supports it.

As far as I am actually permitted to do so, I plan to discount Ian's opinion on this, considering he does not have a legitimate interest in the affairs of Kentucky.  I guess the same rule would apply to the people who are actually from Virginia.

In any case, it's all well and good having the citizens of those three states wanting to join the most conservative region - considering they're all Republicans.  What if, about a year down the line, the majority of those states' populations happen to be liberals more inclined to the North?

[Joe Republic]

So, with the only resident of Montana planning to scupper the transfer outlined in Clause 2, and me planning to scupper the transfer in the proposed Clause 4, is this bill really worth all the trouble?

[Joe Republic]

As far as the existing bill goes (without the proposed amendment), does it seem fair that someone who doesn't actually live in Montana (and therefore doesn't have much of a vested interest in the state's affairs) should decide what happens to another state whose resident does actually live there?

[Joe Republic]

Why do True Democrat and Gabu get to have a say in what happens to Montana and Utah respectively?  They don't actually live there, and therefore don't really represent those states' interests in the same way that WMS, who actually does live in New Mexico, does.

[Joe Republic]

Why do True Democrat and Gabu get to have a say in what happens to Montana and Utah respectively?  They don't actually live there, and therefore don't really represent those states' interests in the same way that WMS, who actually does live in New Mexico, does.

Well, we live there in Atlasia. If everything was done based on where we actually live, then I wouldn't be able to even vote because I don't live in America (well, permanently).

Currently rules say that for states to transfer between regions, those who (fantasy) live in the states must all approve of the transfer.

Yeah, sorry if that seemed a little harsh.  But it just seems a little odd to me.  Let's say that a few months from now, somebody actually from Utah joins fantasy politics, and finds out (to his horror) that his state was ceded from the Pacific to the Midwest on the authority of the only 'resident' at the time, who is actually Canadian?  I would be a little pissed if I joined up and found that Ohio had by some strange deal been moved to the Southeast or somewhere, on the authority of somebody who doesn't even live here.