Senate Bill: Fix the Regions Amendment (Rejected)

[sentinel]

Greetings Senators -

I represent the Council of Nyman --which consist of Governors LumineVonReuental, Tyrion, Dereich and myself. Unfortunately Governor ZuWo was not online at the time of our first meeting, but we encourage him to join in future meetings.

Tonight, the four of us met and discussed the proposed Fix the Regions Amendment. We all agreed that a prerequisite to this amendment is a forced re-registration of all users in Atlasia. This would eliminate "zombie" users as well as guarantee the "free move" that you all have mentioned.

In addition, we support the proposal that gives the current Governors of the regions of Atlasia the ability to draw the lines of the potential new regions.

Let me be clear --we are not ready to offer any other feedback on this amendment at this time. We await the Senate's response on the "forced re-registration" question and we expect be a key voice in future negotiations.

Thank you,

The Council of Nyman

[sentinel]

You could accomplish the same objective by creating a process that allowed people to pick new locations free of any restrictions.

No, that wouldn't do anything about the zombie problem.

Tyrion is right. On top of that, its misleading to use the Atlasia population totals for anything because so much of it is inactive.

[sentinel]

How would we manage this mass re-registering though? Wouldn't we be out a SoFE if we did it that way?

You can write it in the legislation that "X" position does not have to resign. Or it only affects unelected officials...whatever you want.

[sentinel]

There is an Atlasia Introduction Thread, Tyrion.

[sentinel]

There is an Atlasia Introduction Thread, Tyrion.

Yes, I meant for introducing people. Like the having people talk about themselves. I know the thread exists to introduce people to the game, but now I would like there to be a thread to introduce noobs to the people.

Its not a bad idea but its entirely irrelevant to this thread.

[sentinel]

" and two regional executives chosen by the regional executives. "

I can't see the Council of Nyman supporting that. All Governors would have to be involved.

[sentinel]

Can we talk a little about how this will work?

Section 2: Regional Boundaries

1. The existing Regions of Atlasia are adopted unaltered by this Constitution.
-Ok, pretty straight forward.

2. The consent of the Senate is required for any change in Region boundaries.
-Ok, also straight forward, I'm not too familiar with the procedures of the Senate, but I think the vote threshold should be a supermajority. Not too interesting of a section either way in the end.

3. The consent of the Regions being changed is required.
-So, you're telling me that if the goal was to downsize from 5 to 4 regions (for example), and Region "X" just wants to hold out, then it pretty much stops anything from happening --especially if Region "X" is the one being eliminated.

4. A State by plebiscite shall be able to veto its transfer from one Region to another.
-This is weird. For instance if the Mideast and Northeast were to merge...Pennsylvania could veto it and just be this weird solitary isolated region in the middle of northeast?

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.
-Not interesting really, straight forward.

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.
-Ah see here is where it gets messy! This conflicts with Section 3 of this amendment. Section 3 of this amendment states that the consent of the regions being changed is required, therefore, doesn't the Senate need to invoke Section 3 and get the consent from the regions --but they can't give consent on a plan that doesn't exist because they'd have to make the plan after the Senate invoked Section 6...oh the messiness.

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.


And then when regions merge or reshuffle what happens to the laws and elected officials? Does one region annex the other? Do they start from scratch? Is there a process for this?

EDIT: I would vote against this amendment in the ballot box. It feels like its designed to not work...

EDIT 2: I'm in favor of the idea of the amendment, just work out the kinks first.

[sentinel]

Sirnick,

Last I checked, the going discussion was based off Nix's three region plan. In that setup, theoretically all region's were being repealed and replaced to steal a phrase. In that approach, all regions are being treated the same, the only reason for a region to be singled out would be if the process to redraw the regions was corrupted and therefore unanimous consent of the regions makes perfect sense to prevent such an abuse from occuring.

As for the four region plan, I would say that the purpose of such a requirement is to do just that, protect the Regions from an onerous or bad plan. I would figure that if the plan was of compelling merit, an attempt would be made to make the case for such in said region, rather then to just set a lower bar to avoid not only the potential for defeat, but the need to make the argument. That is at once risk (of defeat) minimization and also at the same time, activity minimization, which is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do overall. If people want to minimize the extent to which they are playing the game in the reform process itself, then I see little reason to think such would be any different once said reform is passed.

Where'd you get repeal and replace from? I haven't heard that before

I didn't realize we were going off the three region plan, but if the amendment is going to repeal and replace all of them, do you think it needs to say it?

Anyway, my point in replying wasn't to talk about the four region plan (which is what you replied to for some reason), it was to point out the conflicts in the bill which you have done nothing to remedy.

[sentinel]

Is there a reason you and me are the only ones replying to this?

[sentinel]

I would oppose this bill. It would allow a state to be in a region all by itself. Silly.