Regional Senate Partnership Amendment [failed to pass]

[tmthforu94]

Does it look familiar? That's because it was a bill that was discussed and heavily debated a few sessions ago. It passed the Senate vote, but failed the public vote.
Some key differences between this version and the other version:
- This version is, overall, more specific than the other version.
- This version requires the voting ot be done in STV, while I believe the other didn't specify.
- On this version, all regions part of the possible deal have to vote 60% in favor. In the other version, it only needed a simple majority.

[tmthforu94]

No thanks. I like regional Senate elections just fine.

Regional Senate elections would still exist. Regions could just combine their elections, which could quite possibly create more interesting and suspenseful elections. Or, we can continue down the same boring path we've been taking for months...

[tmthforu94]

No thanks. I like regional Senate elections just fine.

Regional Senate elections would still exist. Regions could just combine their elections, which could quite possibly create more interesting and suspenseful elections. Or, we can continue down the same boring path we've been taking for months...

Really? Three out of the five regional elections last time were very close and interesting.

I beg to differ. The Southeast and Pacific were never even remotely interesting. The Mideast had some drama early, but ended up being a landslide victory. While the Midwest appeared close, I don't think many people expected it to go the other way, simply based on the fact that liberals outnumber conservatives in the region, and the conservative candidate had the numbers to get close, but not to win. The Northeast was the only exciting race in this election, as the results suprised a lot of people. A combination, for example, of the Midwest and Pacific could have created a much more interesting race than the two regions individually.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

If anything, we should let the people decide on this. If some people were really regionalists, they would leave it to the regions to decide whether they want it or not, not the federal government. Personally, I'm voting for this not only because of that, but because I think this would put a positive impact on the game that would make regional senate elections more exciting and dramatic than they currently are.

[tmthforu94]

Nay

Fake regionalist. It's becoming more and more clear regional rights is a brand name, and not a genuine ideology, as you only seem to support the "rights" of the regions that you like.

Marokai, you should know this by now: Regionalists only support regional rights when they want to. It simply depends on the issue. If it's an issue they don't want, they'll fall back on saying it should be "up to the regions". I can't think why regionalists don't support this bill, which would give regions even more power.

[tmthforu94]

Nay

Fake regionalist. It's becoming more and more clear regional rights is a brand name, and not a genuine ideology, as you only seem to support the "rights" of the regions that you like.

Marokai, you should know this by now: Regionalists only support regional rights when they want to. It simply depends on the issue. If it's an issue they don't want, they'll fall back on saying it should be "up to the regions". I can't think why regionalists don't support this bill, which would give regions even more power.

To be fair, this won't give regions more "power" in the lateral sense that they can exert any additional influence on any part of the process. This is more of a horizontal power, where you shift around what a region can do without adding any new powers.

That being said, I don't think there needs to be a regionalist argument against this amendment. Why create additional unnecessary complexity in an already multi-faceted game?

Currently, it is the opinion of many that regional senate elections are boring. This would hopefully make them more interesting and exciting.

[tmthforu94]

This amendment has enough votes to fail; Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

But their are only 4 votes against it, unless my math is mistaken.

[tmthforu94]

This amendment has enough votes to fail; Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

But their are only 4 votes against it, unless my math is mistaken.

Its a consitutional amendment and requires 2/3 = 66.67% of senate. Since the 6.67% has to vote yes it requires 7 votes not 6.

Ah, that make sense. Well shoot...