SENATE BILL: Efficient Referenda Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The lack of knowing which amendments have passed is once again, the effect of a lack of organized media presence. In the old days they were be tracked by such operations, now we are lucky to just get a single tracker for the At-Large elections every four months.

I definitely support the use of the DoFE when holding regional votes, but I can't support repealing the 17th in its entirety. Its presence presents too many opportunities for fun. I remember when Marokai fought for the passage of this bill, and at the time I was against it, but hindsight is 20/20.

In my opinion, something to the effect of allowing the DoFE to administer the first vote by region on any amendment - with the regional government dealing with subsequent attempts at passage - would be more desirable. I suppose I'm leading the charge for regional rights on this, then?

It is one thing to call tongue in cheek, attempt to rob peter to pay paul on the issue an advocancy for regional rights like you did a campaign a few weeks back. However, I don't even see that opportunity here either.

I am reluctant to see the 17th amendment gone myself. I think if a Region wants to be able to delegate ito a council like the Pacific did, they should be able to. They shouldn't do it obviously, but there is no reason to deny a region the right to be stupid as long as it isn't in some way to deny the people their ability to change it back later as certain folks tried to do at one point in a certain region. The answer of course is for the regional constitution to enshrine a solid process behind the wall of a threshold that is too high to be able to be hijacked by any such cabal.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I definitely support the use of the DoFE when holding regional votes, but I can't support repealing the 17th in its entirety. Its presence presents too many opportunities for fun. I remember when Marokai fought for the passage of this bill, and at the time I was against it, but hindsight is 20/20.

In my opinion, something to the effect of allowing the DoFE to administer the first vote by region on any amendment - with the regional government dealing with subsequent attempts at passage - would be more desirable. I suppose I'm leading the charge for regional rights on this, then?

What does this mean? Something like the DoFE holding the first vote on an amendment, but if that fails, and the senate passes it again, allowing the regions to administer that? Or the DOFE opens one booth, but the governor certifies each result?

THe DoFE holds the first vote and Region the subsequent re-attempts if the first one were to fail.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Uh what?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Under Adam's suggestion the Regions can then hold a vote on it at later date under their own administration to try again.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Where is there an implication that Senate would need to pass it again?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, I think so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Its not the destination, its the journey.

If more people took that approach, this place would be whole lot less boring.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I read it last year several times, when I twice tried to repeal or amend the damn thing.


Of course that was while ago, perhaps posting it will help the others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the hope behind Maroduke+Nix+myself and all five other ayes was that it would allow regions to combine their ballots with Regional legislative elections for instance to increase turnout for each other of the elections.

Also they wanted to decentralize the Regional Senate elections as well to further achieve the same objective, but that fizzeled out of impracticallity and lack of sufficient support.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm inclined to vote against this. I typically don't like laws that centralize the Government and diminish the role of the Regions. I really don't understand why some regional executives are too inactive to open up a voting booth.

Not understanding it means you would choose to enable it?

One could argue that removal of responsbility, will also enable/encourage inactivity on the part of Regional executives.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm inclined to vote against this. I typically don't like laws that centralize the Government and diminish the role of the Regions. I really don't understand why some regional executives are too inactive to open up a voting booth.

Not understanding it means you would choose to enable it?

One could argue that removal of responsbility, will also enable/encourage inactivity on the part of Regional executives.

Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. I think the solution should be for Regions to elect more active executives, not to eliminate this responsibility from their jobs.

So, let me get this straight:

1. Regional executives are often inactive, and do not open booths for federal amendments.
2. We are suggesting taking that responsibility from inactive actors.
3. You are suggesting we leave them this responsibility in the hopes that the people of these regions just elect more active regional executives.
4. There is fear that these regional executives will become more inactive because they will have less to do.

Twisted logic, to say the least.

Anyway, Griffin's amendment works that out rather nicely.

The basis for taking that appraoch is that you need to get the Regional Executive active regardless of this issue, unless you plan to at some point just abolish the Regions. If you continue to accept that reality of they are probably going to be inactive, you work around it and essentially build a system where they are unnecessary, people will of course pay less attention, leading to worse outcomes and more inactivity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want to know why it is that those senators who complain about affronts, real and imagined, to "regional rights", object to my proposal to administer federal referenda but seem to have no problem with my administration of regional Senate elections.

Faulty reasoning. We tried twice to regionalize their administration as I noted on page one homely (and this is only a one page plus thread).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I mean god damn homely, I would appreciate you to have the courtesy and respect for our more regionalist members to not strawman them in such a disrespectful fashion to treat these legitimate complaints that you may very well legitimately not share as such or to presume a position of hypocrisy by virtue of such strawmaning as well as a factual innaccuracy (namely presumming opposition to regionalizing the regional seats, when such is not the case at least on my part).

Hell I even attempted to switch the classes once to facilicate the regionalizing of the administration of Regional Senate seats.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Cincy may 24 hours on objections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is anyone open to a trade?  Regional Senate election administration for federal referenda administration?  Perhaps not..

If it is done in one amendment, then perhaps?

The problem is regionalizing regional Senate seats is rather complex. You kinda of have to switch the classes around or you have just the Presidential election on that particular ballot.

Also you could not pass the Lameduck amendment and allow Regions to elect their SEnators at different times allowing for the flexibility to match it up with legislative elections, as long as they are done atl east a week before the start of the new term. This would be fine for the IDS, but the elections of the NE and ME might not be so facilitative thus.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

WEll it was a nice try Cincy. Marokai got burned on that as well.


You could argue that the Regional Legislative elections would get more attention and turnout if the Regional Senate seats were attached to the same ballot.

But I, for one, wouldn't support regionalizing senate elections, because I'm certain that it wouldn't be long before a region failed to hold one. The current system is not broken, so does not need to be fixed. Unlike the amendment system.

Is this distinction not the result of the fact that we have been blessed with two years plus of homelycooking doing a job that few would do and without incident? There was a time when the SoFE/SoFA was late or forgot to do it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This gets back to the point that I was mking before. Think of it as pressure points.

The reason you have less risk at the top is because no one would stand for it for long if one were missed. The more you remove stuff from the regional level, the less concern people will have to ensure iti s getting done. This is the point that I was trying to make on page one that people mocked. If you keep removing stuff from the Regional levle you create a self-fulfilling prophesy of inactivity and eventual abolition of them.

If you put Regional Senators on the regional legislative ballot, and one of them was missed, yes people would be outraged and bitch and moan about it being missed but
1) That very outrage would produce a reaction from a secondardy or tertiary alternate as well as to put pressure on the Governor in his next election, and
2) better ensure that in such a scenario that the legislative ballot was completed as well. Whereas you could go much longer then just a day a or two from lack of attention or concern if it as just the regional legislative body (as we have seen many times). 

You would also have two weeks or three weeks in which they could do it under the Federal approved window prior to the start of the new Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I mean god damn homely, I would appreciate you to have the courtesy and respect for our more regionalist members to not strawman them in such a disrespectful fashion to treat these legitimate complaints that you may very well legitimately not share as such or to presume a position of hypocrisy by virtue of such strawmaning as well as a factual innaccuracy (namely presumming opposition to regionalizing the regional seats, when such is not the case at least on my part).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would appreciate it if you would summon the personal courtesy needed to not to lie about my record as SoFE...

Consider the latter repayment for the former.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I want to know why it is that those senators who complain about affronts, real and imagined, to "regional rights", object to my proposal to administer federal referenda but seem to have no problem with my administration of regional Senate elections.

I missed this point yesterday and recalled the post later and what I should have said.

The regional booths are not part of a federal referenda, they may be referred to such but they are not under the strictest defintion of the terminology. They are components of the regional retification process by which Amenments to the Atlasian Constitution, proposed by the Atlasian Senate, are ratified and put into effect.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In principle I very much support this, particularly with regard to a constitutional amendment. I think, though, that something above and beyond a simple majority should be required for passage - like 55%, just to throw out a figure, but that doesn't have to be it.

The idea in principle simplifies matters a great deal and puts one person in charge, which will alleviate some if not all of the current issues and problems.  

This present amendment preserves the present threshold, which is a seperate debate. This is a great divide between us man, but I think it is rather foolish to open up to the whims of the temporary majority, the very freedoms and democratic processes we rely upon. How much did Prop 8 pass by in CA? I am pretty sure it was less than 55%. It was a Federal court to resisted that temporary popular majority. Imagine if the anti-gay marrigage Republicans and Democrats had united to passed an amendment in the Senate and Congress in say 2002 and it only would have taken 55% in a single nationwide popular vote referendum to pass it? Whereras under the present real life system, liberal Democrats could have blocked it or just not held the vote in a chamber they held in CA, NY, ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, MD, ILL, OR, WA, MN, NJ, HI, NC, MT, NM, NV, and DE state legislatures.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well,
Seriously, as Midwest Governor,  I believe that isn't my duty to administer that. I mean, as  Governor, I shall administer Midwest elections/Midwest constitutionnal amendments,...

But in that case, that's a federal issue. Homely administers the senate regional elections, I guess he should administer the Atlasia constitutionnal amendment too.
That's not a local issue, that's a federal issue.

Not entirely because like I meant to say yesterday, the system is structured to balance regional and federal in the Amendment process as it is balanced in the Senate. Therefore the ratification process is the voice of the regions in the matter and it is not as much of a leap to have Governor's administer at the Regional level as it would be if one just regards this a federal referendum vote, though I do realize many desire that it be switched to such eventually and I have done my best established the folly in doing so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Incidental" sounds so trivializing.

Why regions hold individual voting booths on what are clearly federal matters is actually something I never really understood and seems not very expeditious.

Because it is a process of regional ratification. This is a federal system and thus by definition a federal system is a composite that incorporates the regions as a component in both its legislative and Constittuional Amendment process. Any amendment or alteration to the governing document is inherently a Regional matter, DemPGH. Therein lies the problem for you don't support regional ratification and thus would necessarily fail to see any purpose or reasonableness behind Governors administering what you would like to see as a single (rather low threshold) real federal referendum.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So where are we on this now?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sorry about that, got a little ahead of myself here.


Cincy, you may open a vote since there doesn't seem to be any interest in this in the way of amendments or further discussion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cincy, this is one of your threads remember.