Mideast Assembly Thread

[Franzl]

The Mideast does not run smoothly, lol.

But I'm not sure reducing the number of regions would make regional governments more efficient.

But at least we might have competitive elections instead of a situation where 11 out of 17 registered voters hold office of some kind.

Sure, and all these matters could be debated. I think reducing the regions would make things more competititive, and that would lead to more competent leadership.

That's basically why I think the convention is a pretty good idea. Gives everyone a chance to talk about these issues.

I'm still not convinced that a CC would be good for us.  If a vote was held today, I'd be voting against it.

I would like some concrete ideas though....would be kind of helpful, exactly what people have in mind in a constitutional convention.

[Franzl]

Three regions...

well yeah, ok, I understand that. Anything else in mind?

[Franzl]

My big problem with the 3 regions idea is that it may break up a very active region.  If we remove a region, it should be one that isn't active.

and suggestion?

[Franzl]

My big problem with the 3 regions idea is that it may break up a very active region.  If we remove a region, it should be one that isn't active.

and suggestion?

If we remove a region, I would suggest it be either the Pacific or Midwest, as they seem to be the least active; perhaps cutting down on the number of At-Large Senators, and increasing the frequency of elections.

that's basically my problem....we need direct authorization from any region we want to integrate with another. I wonder which region would voluntarily agree to be broken up.

[Franzl]

My big problem with the 3 regions idea is that it may break up a very active region.  If we remove a region, it should be one that isn't active.

and suggestion?

If we remove a region, I would suggest it be either the Pacific or Midwest, as they seem to be the least active; perhaps cutting down on the number of At-Large Senators, and increasing the frequency of elections.

that's basically my problem....we need direct authorization from any region we want to integrate with another. I wonder which region would voluntarily agree to be broken up.

We wouldn't need any authorization in a CC.  The Const. would be redrafte and then voted upon.

Right, but apparently 4 regions would have to ratify any decision made by the convention, if my understanding is correct. (which is a good thing, it'll prevent anything completely idiotic from happening.)

[Franzl]

My big problem with the 3 regions idea is that it may break up a very active region.  If we remove a region, it should be one that isn't active.

and suggestion?

If we remove a region, I would suggest it be either the Pacific or Midwest, as they seem to be the least active; perhaps cutting down on the number of At-Large Senators, and increasing the frequency of elections.

that's basically my problem....we need direct authorization from any region we want to integrate with another. I wonder which region would voluntarily agree to be broken up.

We wouldn't need any authorization in a CC.  The Const. would be redrafte and then voted upon.

Right, but apparently 4 regions would have to ratify any decision made by the convention, if my understanding is correct. (which is a good thing, it'll prevent anything completely idiotic from happening.)

Right, but it's not specifically asking 2 regions, "Can we merge you?"  Hypothetically, one region could say no.

yeah, that's true, I suppose.

Don't you think, though, that giving people the chance to vote on it in a constitutional convention would be a net gain in almost any case, though? The end result would be certain to, at the very least, be approved of by the vast majority of Atlasians.

As I've argued before, it would be an attention getter and would hopefully increase general interest.

[Franzl]

My big problem with the 3 regions idea is that it may break up a very active region.  If we remove a region, it should be one that isn't active.

and suggestion?

If we remove a region, I would suggest it be either the Pacific or Midwest, as they seem to be the least active; perhaps cutting down on the number of At-Large Senators, and increasing the frequency of elections.

that's basically my problem....we need direct authorization from any region we want to integrate with another. I wonder which region would voluntarily agree to be broken up.

We wouldn't need any authorization in a CC.  The Const. would be redrafte and then voted upon.

Right, but apparently 4 regions would have to ratify any decision made by the convention, if my understanding is correct. (which is a good thing, it'll prevent anything completely idiotic from happening.)

Right, but it's not specifically asking 2 regions, "Can we merge you?"  Hypothetically, one region could say no.

yeah, that's true, I suppose.

Don't you think, though, that giving people the chance to vote on it in a constitutional convention would be a net gain in almost any case, though? The end result would be certain to, at the very least, be approved of by the vast majority of Atlasians.

As I've argued before, it would be an attention getter and would hopefully increase general interest.

But is that fair to the merging regions?  What if we merge 2 regions and one of the to-be-merged regions votes against it, but the other 4 vote for it?  That's unfair to the to-be-merged region in my opinion, and considering my stance on regional rights, I cannot vote for something that would allow for such a travesty.  Now, if I could be guaranteed that a scenario like that could not happen, I would be more likely to vote for the CC.

Well, I respect that, and I'm still considering it myself. I'm not sure how we could guarantee that something like that wouldn't happen.

It's not even clear at this point how many people even favor the idea of fewer regions. It seems like everyone has different intents and goals going into the possible convention.

That's part of what would makt it fun, though

[Franzl]

I think debate has been sufficient...unless anybody has something important to say.

I'd like to call a vote on a constitutional convention.

Please vote AYE, NAY or abstain.

[Franzl]

AYE

[Franzl]

umm...well, yes, you're right, that would be the most fair and democratic way of doing it.

I accept your motion.

Let's vote on the text provided by Peter.

_____________________________________

AYE

[Franzl]

On the following matter:

The Mideast Assembly refers the matter of whether to petition for a Constitutional Convention to a public vote.

I vote:

NAY

I would like to call on Governor Afleitch to propose this as a proposition.  In my opinion, this is something that ALL Mideasterners should have a say in.

Umm..a public vote is exactly what is being suggested in this legislation...

[Franzl]

Yes, Governor, that might work better.

And attention friends: I won't be online until the 26th. Just to let you know.

[Franzl]

The Mideast Assembly petitions for a federal Constitutional Convention. (sponsored by Inks.LWC)

Please vote AYE, NAY or abstain.

[Franzl]

AYE

[Franzl]

The motion has been defeated.

NAY: 2 (Peter, Inks)
AYE: 1 (Franzl)

[Franzl]

It has been my great honor and privelege to serve in this legislature, but since I have now been confirmed as Atlasia's Attorney General, I must hereby resign my seat...and my role as Speaker of this great body.

I wish Inks and Peter the best of luck, and hereby request that Governor Afleitch quickly find an appropriate replacement.

Thank you all.

[Franzl]

I would have supported Inks or Peter (no disrespect to Purple State, though).

Anyway, since Peter has declined....as former speaker, I wish to offer Inks my full support and congratulations.

[Franzl]

My congratulations to the new Assembly, and especially its newly appointed member.

[Franzl]

The problem I see here is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the questionable statement is false.

It's possible in real life...but it'd be pretty hard on the forum.

[Franzl]

It's not a bad law...and I wouldn't oppose it in principle.

You just need to know that it would be hard to prosecute any such case...as it would have to be seriously proven in court that the statement is false.

And the "purpose" of somebody accused of such a crime is highly subjective....not to mention that it has to be proven the person making these statements has to know the statements are false.

I agree with you in principle though, Purple State....I'd urge the Assembly to consider how this would work in practice, though. I suppose you could try it out and see what would happen in a real case, but think about it.

[Franzl]

The other thing that immediately springs to my mind is how do we determine if a crime has been commited in the Mideast Region?

That's a good question actually.

Perhaps the residence of the accused person would count? It'd have to say that in the law, though.

[Franzl]

I'm concerned about freedom of speech protection here, as well.

Where do we draw the line?

I don't think anyone has the right to not be offended. I would personally be more comfortable with the bill if it were restricted only to statements that are made falsely that damage one's reputation.

Not that it matters...as I've said, the Assembly needs to decide for itself which priorities it has.

[Franzl]

Afleitch will be gone all week, he said, just for your information.

[Franzl]

Members of the Assembly:

While the "Help Atlasia Study Act of 2009" is not quite law, yet, I'd urge the assembly to consider how the Mideast will use that money and to come up with a good plan on how to distribute it.

Thanks!

[Franzl]

Loving the whole "pass the buck" thing.

Well we figured that regions know their citizens better.