Senate Bill: Fix the Regions Amendment (Rejected)

[tmthforu94]

As important as history and tradition is in this game, I think our main job in the Senate should be to find ways to improve this game for the future. I've played a pretty big role in Mideast history, and I also have grown to love many of the Midwests' traditions, so I understand some of the concerns presented. However, the importance of improving this game, plus considering the fact that the new regions could still vote to adopt some of these traditions, means the Nix Plan has my support at this point. It's the best option I've seen.

[tmthforu94]

First, let me say that I'm happy to see our regions working together.

Personally, with all the shifting and rearranging that would happen, I think a re-registration may be appropriate, just to help ensure all registered voters are clear on which region they are apart of. This change would have my support.

[tmthforu94]

Well, I think the obvious thing that needs done here is writing the actual amendment, which will be no easy task. Is there a general consensus behind the President's plan, or does anyone have an improvement to suggest?

[tmthforu94]

A rough sketch of what I have thus far - introducing my amendments in chunks rather than all at once in hopes of sparking debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[tmthforu94]

I could potentially support including a couple cabinet members, but I firmly believe that each region should have an equal say in this process.

[tmthforu94]

The plan should require the consent of the regions being changed, like in Tmth's proposal.

Also, are any of these being offered? I threw Tmth's into the tracker rather hurriedly and without double checking the other day, so I might have made a mistake in doing so.

I wasn't officially offering it as an amendment, just trying to get feedback.

I would also like to state the importance in making sure regions have to give approval for this to take effect, whether my wording or another. While the constitutional amendment to make this an option could potentially pass, signifying regional acceptance for the plan, I don't want the Senate to have the power to change the regions again in a couple years with no consent from the regions.

[tmthforu94]

Okay, here is an official amendment :

[quote]Article IV, Section 2 of the Third Constitution is amended to read as follows:

[quote]Section 2: Regional Boundaries
1. The existing Regions of Atlasia are adopted unaltered by this Constitution.
2. The consent of the Senate is required for any change in Region boundaries.
3. The consent of the Regions being changed is required.
4. A State by plebiscite shall be able to veto its transfer from one Region to another.
5. The Senate may by law admit new States to the Republic of Atlasia. The Senate may apportion this State to a Region via proper legislation.
6. The Senate, by a majority vote, along with two-thirds of the regions may vote to alter the quantity of Regions. The boundaries of the Regions shall be set by the regional executives of all regions, as well as the Vice President. The boundaries must be approved by the Senate. The boundaries shall go into effect in concurrence with the following Class A Senate Elections.
7. Should the committee to set boundaries not have an approved map within two months of it's beginning, the boundaries shall be set by the Registrar General.

[tmthforu94]

Once this amendment is voted on, I would be happy to offer another amendment addressing the concerns you had about Sections 3 and 5. Unfortunately, I don't think too many Senators are interested in discussing this important issue because they have doubts on it actually being implemented.

[tmthforu94]

I'm trying hard to get something perfect here, hence the constant revisions - it would be great if some folks would put their money where their mouth is and make some contributions to this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are your thoughts on this, Griffin, Sirnick, and Yankee?

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

The next question is how the Senate looks after this. The concern is that this would lower the number of regions and then the Senate would have minus however many Senators the regions lose. Would this be something discussed in the new Regional process, or should we amend it into this thing?

The idea I've heard the most (which is what I support) is if we were to reduce it to three, entitle each region to two Senate seats and let the regions handle the elections for it (then 6 at-large seats). It's a question of whether we include that part in this amendment or send it through once we might potentially reduce.

[tmthforu94]

There are (I believe) 23 members currently in regional legislatures - a reduction to three (Assuming each would have 5 to 7 members) would mean 15-21, so a net loss of 2 to 8.

There are currently about 14 in the executive and judicial branches - a reduction to three regions would put that at 9, so a net loss of 5.

That creates a potential net loss of positions from 7 to 13. So even if we slightly expand the Senate to accommodate the changes, we're still losing seats overall.

[tmthforu94]

I'm not sure if I agree with the committee being able to remove someone who disagrees, then has the power to make their own choice on who takes their place (which would likely be someone supportive of their plan). The region should definitely be able to select their representative, and if, after that, they are still at an impasse, they'll need to go back to the drawing board.

[tmthforu94]

I'm not sure if I agree with the committee being able to remove someone who disagrees, then has the power to make their own choice on who takes their place (which would likely be someone supportive of their plan). The region should definitely be able to select their representative, and if, after that, they are still at an impasse, they'll need to go back to the drawing board.

Should we give the power to replace the dissenter to the Senate?

Personally, I think it would be more appropriate to give it to the region they represent. Perhaps the regional legislature?

[tmthforu94]

Basing it off the amendment Tyrion offered, as I'm a little lost on what the overall text of this amendment is looking like...I introduce the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

I have been working hard all night on this - hours upon hours...

I hereby introduce the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Why not just have it so that if nothing is resolved the SOFE or Supreme court draws the boundaries? That basically means even if the governor/VP doesn't like regional reform they'll want to participate anyway, so as to minimize the damage.

See Clause 6


Aye - it would be swell if folks would bring up their concerns before we start voting on the amendment so we can find something more acceptable to all.

[tmthforu94]

If we adopt that strategy, not only are we losing the votes from people who oppose regional consolidation, but also people who oppose that specific map. The current plan is more likely to pass and allows the regions to play an important role in the process.

[tmthforu94]

If your map is so grand, it should have no problem passing the committee. I firmly believe that regions should be involved in this process as much as possible, as it is they who will be having the greatest impact from this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In terms of simplifying this...
Clause 1 and 2 are required. They're not necessarily part of the process - they just establish the process.
I don't really see a way to remove clause 3, outside of allowing a public petition to have a vote on forming a Consolidation Committee. For clause 4, that's likely where most of the disagreement lies - personally, I believe having a consensus among the regions is essential, though I am always open to hearing arguments on the contrary. Clause 5 needs done as well, though I know the current wording could be open to interpretation.
I would personally be open to stripping clause 6, instead having a clause that states the Senate may require the committee to go back to the drawing board if 2/3s oppose the map.

[tmthforu94]

I will oppose any final version that removes the regions from the decision-process, both through voting on consolidation and on the committee.

[tmthforu94]

Nay

[tmthforu94]

So do those in favor of this amendment feel they have the votes to pass this at a final vote without the support of the few of us who won't vote for a final version that just requires a national referendum and no regional involvement?

Let's not overreach here, folks.

[tmthforu94]

As we move forward, considering how many additions still need to be made, I think we ought to consider creating an entire section in the Constitution devoted to regional consolidation and the process if it were to take place.

[tmthforu94]

That looks fine with me, though I am curious to see what Max has to offer.