Senate Bill: Fix the Regions Amendment (Rejected)

[Gass3268]

I personally would like to go down to 3 regions.

[Gass3268]

I too like the Nix plan

[Gass3268]

I would support re-registration.

[Gass3268]

Here is my initial proposal, lets see where we can find some compromise:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Gass3268]

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

Okay, I get that, but I'd like to see the Federal government have close to an equal about the new boundaries. Also I think that what ever the final map the commission comes up with should be final.     

[Gass3268]

Aye

[Gass3268]

Aye

[Gass3268]

Nay

If this amendment fails I'll have another one up which makes it just 2/3rds of citizens voting in all atlasia (as in a federal referenda).

Also, I can't help but feel that that language about dissenters is incredibly complicated. 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.

I agree with this, NAY

[Gass3268]

Ugh, you guys can get rid of all that mumbo-jumbo in Clauses 5 & 6 if you just adopt the CARCA map boundaries and do this in one swoop.

If you want that map through, advocating Governors is probably a better place to go.

Well, we could easily throw out the amendment as it stands and just adopt this map. The people will have to ratify it regardless.

Thinking over the issue, I think it would be best for us to put forward the adoption of this map as the process would be more straight forward than the massive clause we are currently voting on.

[Gass3268]

Let me see if I understand how the process, as currently written, would operate:

1. 2/3rds approval of the Fix the Regions Amendment by the Senate
2. 2/3rds approval of the Fix the Regions Amendment by the Regions
3. Majority of the Senate votes in favor of establishing a Consolidation Committee
4. 2/3rds of the Regions vote in favor of establishing a Consolidation Committee
5. Currently ambiguous approval needed in the Consolidation Committee for a new map
6. Majority approval of the new map by the Senate

Is my understanding of this process correct?     

[Gass3268]

Let me see if I understand how the process, as currently written, would operate:

1. 2/3rds approval of the Fix the Regions Amendment by the Senate
2. 2/3rds approval of the Fix the Regions Amendment by the Regions
3. Majority of the Senate votes in favor of establishing a Consolidation Committee
4. 2/3rds of the Regions vote in favor of establishing a Consolidation Committee
5. Currently ambiguous approval needed in the Consolidation Committee for a new map
6. Majority approval of the new map by the Senate

Is my understanding of this process correct?     

That looks correct, yes. And I think that's necessary: this isn't small potatoes we are dealing with, this is a huge change in the game, and approval each step of the way is key.

Thanks! I am conflicted with some of these thresholds needed a some of the different steps and the ambiguity of what the threshold would be for approval in the Consolidation Committee. I do support Senator Bore's proposal of changing step 4 to a vote of 2/3rds or a majority of citizens voting in all Atlasia. Also I establish what the approval threshold needs to be in the Consolidation Committee.

[Gass3268]

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.

4 - I would like to go to a national referendum like Bore has proposed
5 - I think we need to make it a majority vote with the RG or Supreme Court as the tiebreaker
6 - I think it would be important for the Senate to have final approval

[Gass3268]

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.

Regions still have involvement in the committees that will create the new lines.

Aye

[Gass3268]

Throw this out and prepare for a national discussion. I have a plan. I want your hand(s). Everyone must help me craft it into something that can really shake things up.

When will we be hearing about this plan?

[Gass3268]

Throw this out and prepare for a national discussion. I have a plan. I want your hand(s). Everyone must help me craft it into something that can really shake things up.

When will we be hearing about this plan?

It is the plan I unveiled during the campaign. Did you not read my memorandum? Look at my campaign thread? Consider voting for me? Shame on you.

I worked hard on it, you better believe it, and while in its current form is not perfect, I am confident once we start our discussion, it will be perfected.

Oh, yeah I read that and agreed with it. I thought your statement above meant you had more to add to that plan. 

[Gass3268]

Aye

[Gass3268]

Whoops