SENATE BILL: Ratification Regionalization Amendment (sent to regions)

[Marokai Backbeat]

How is this at all preferable to holding a nationwide referendum?

Our current system is a one-off procedure and delightfully dull.

Really?

I always believed that our most important legal document can be amended only with consent of the people. Legislatures? Only if they all are universal legislatures like in Midwest, which is not going to happen. Gubernatorial signature? Ratyfing or rejecting an amendment on behalf of the region by just one person? Really?

Regional rights? Constitution is a federal matter so I couldn't care less.

So long as ratification of Amendments is done on some sort of regional breakdown, regions certainly deserve some sort of say. Currently, Amendments exist in this weird silly little middle ground, where it's kind of regional, but kind of national, and always a complete one-off procedure that requires passage through the Senate again if that Amendment is ever to be voted on again. I think we should either go all-out with ratification and make it a more regional matter, or go all-out with ratification and make it an entirely national referendum, with a set percentage of votes for ratification.

But either way, I really dislike the current way Amendments just sort of disappear if they fail ratification. For all the talk of people claiming Atlasia should be based on the US, that's not actually how the US ratifies Amendments. If we wanted to ratify something that passed a century ago, we still totally could. I think that, at least could be interesting here.

Granted, if the legislature passes it and the governor signs the amendment, I would live with that, but not the governor passing it unilaterally without any input from the legislature.

I'm open to changing that.

[Marokai Backbeat]

why would the regions be limited in the threshold needed for a popular vote? that is a peculiar lack of latitude given the other options allowed.

I don't understand what this complain is trying to get at, sorry. Could you clarify?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

..What? I'm sorry, again, I feel like you're not understanding something here. 3 is designed to keep regional legislatures from abruptly changing the ratification procedure all the time if the current ratification procedure didn't lead to an outcome of their liking. Do you understand what this Amendment is doing? That is an honest and genuine question. I'm not entirely sure what's ambiguous about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should that be the case? Not that I'm necessarily opposed, but, this is treading dangerously close to just also allowing regions to outright restrict votes. A quorum, specifically, seems like an unfair thing to institute. I'm certainly in favor of allowing regions to tinker with their own ratification procedure, but there must still be some standard of fairness.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I offer the following amendments and one of the two conditional amendments based on whether the first is adopted or not:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And if the above passes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And if not:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll accept the first two as friendly. Not the last.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well if the first one passes, the third one goes bye bye anyway.

Acceptable.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Why limit region's to using a majority vote instead of, say,  2/3?

I have no inherent problem with that being a requirement; I just think the standard of passage should be universal. Changing the procedure is one thing, but creating an artificially high barrier to passage is a bit unfair.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see what that means now, at least. I have no inherent problem here either, but would that really matter, that much?

Can't we just try the 4/5 regions or 60% nationwide thing again?

I'm fine with this too, but I doubt it stands a great chance of passing. Haven't we tried that like, three times? I simply thought it would be a neat idea to chance our ratification procedure to a more regional/American style, and make Amendments last forever after Senate passage. That last part, at the very least, is a reasonably uncontroversial idea, if all else fails.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I do not accept your amendment as friendly on the grounds that this completely alters the point of the original legislation and you should bring it up separately.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.