Official Petition to Call a Constitutional Convention

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A new constitution doesn't guarrantee more activity on its own. The efficiency gains or functional improvements can help get more people interested, but its a marginal effect. We are grateful to have the Purple State/Marokai Constitution as opposed to what came before it, and in that they were successful. In terms of a significant sea change in activity though, they were less successful because it is beyond the ability of a reform or change to motivate people to participate. You have to contend with the cycles of real life politics bringing people in and cycling them out, amongst other variables that cannot be controlled.

The switching out of systems, is a tradeoff as well. Going to a Parliamentary system will enthuse some but some others will be less interested.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Consider this though. The reasons Purple/Blue succeeded was because they started there con-con with a clear vision of how and what was to be done in it and kept it focused.

On the other hand a constitution convention of the sorts that would likely be produced would likely end up like 2009, which I think Adam has already conceded the likelihood of when he stated he ws in for the ideas it would generate as opposed to the actual results of the convention (the end product). Considering this is starting out like 2009 more so then 2010, that is probably the best approach to take.

If you want a Purple-Blue result, then you might want to start off with that goal in mind. One thing is for sure, the mere divide in objectives desired to be attained will ensure failure if nothing else.

Think of it like this. In real life, most all of the convention delegates went to Philadelphia acknowledging the weaknesses of the ARticles of Confederation and desired to acheive a stronger central gov't that could better protect itself both from foreig nand domestic threats. Those that were unsure about whether or not to scrap the articles entirely basically came to that conclusion after the first weeks. Essentially from the beginning, they knew what was desired and it merely was a matter of fighting out the details between big and small, north and south and so forth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I really think you're exaggerating the situation. The game in its current state isn't terribly exciting but it's hardly reached the level of absolute tedium. If we want to make it more interesting, the only thing we can do is try and increase activity, and I don't see what a new constitution has to offer on that front. Even if a parliamentary system were a likely outcome of a constitutional convention, how would that increase activity or make the game more interesting? If you want to reboot the legislative statute that's one thing, but a constitutional convention isn't really a necessary or efficient way of accomplishing that aim.

Since 2009, when that convention was crashing and burning, I have made the case that primary means of increasing activity must necessarily be a bottom up process and attempts to legislate or reform it into existance will surely fail. Switching systems is a trade-off, functional improvements are just that and "Stirring things up" only lasts a short while whereas the traded-off consequences could be long lasting.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

About 15 or 20 and the game continues as is until they actually manage to pass something and then get it ratified.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though it would certainl pull people's attention off other projects in various structures like the Senate and regional legislatures if a lot of them are also delegates.