Call for a Constitutional Convention

[Emsworth]

The Amendment to Introduce a Parliamentary System to Atlasia has been defeated in the Senate, but other reform proposals have been put forward. For example, Governor Afleitch has suggested the creation of a sixth district. Furthermore, several citizens have called for the removal of unnecessary technicalities that are sometimes used to disenfranchise voters.

We have been promising voting reform for several months now, but nothing substantive has actually resulted in terms of constitutional amendments. I intend no disrespect, but I do not believe that reform will be accomplished by the Senate. Its agenda is already full; it will take a very long time for any new reform proposal to come up for debate. Senators have several other bills to consider; they cannot be expected to spend all of their time on voting reform. More importantly, participation is limited to just ten individuals, rather than the people as a whole.

In order to remedy this problem, I suggest that we call a constitutional convention. I am not suggesting that we should completely replace the current Constitution. The convention should be responsible for amending, not replacing, the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes us to call such a convention: "Upon application of the citizens of a majority of the Regions, the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall call a Constitutional Convention to amend or replace this Constitution."

[Emsworth]

No.
The US Constitutional Convention was also called to amend the articles.
Guess how that turned out.

There is no reason to believe that our constitutional convention will be as undisciplined as the U.S. Constitutional Convention. The Philadelphia Convention met in secret, and could therefore do whatever it pleased without fear of public review. Our convention, however, will be public. It will be far less likely to deviate from the expectation that it will only amend the Constitution, not replace it.

[Emsworth]

No, electoral reform has passed a few days ago but it was passed before an amendment could fix it. Peter's bill to amendment it will officially pass tomorrow and then we'll get to vote on that very soon.

That reform only affects voting procedures. But procedure was never really the major issue. There are several other concerns that should be considered, including:

- Whether a parliamentary system should be adopted
- Whether the timing of elections should be fixed or flexible
- Whether the number of districts needs to be changed
- Whether regional senators should be abolished
- Whether regional senators should continue be appointed, or be elected
- Whether voters should be allowed to edit their votes in cases of error
- Whether any of the other technicalities in Article V should be removed

I am not necessarily in favor of all of these reforms (for example, I oppose a parliamentary system). However, I still believe that each of these ideas deserves a full discussion and vote, not just in the Senate, but in a convention of the people.

[Emsworth]

Would another CC increase that likelyhood? Or would the CC end up like the "What needs to get done?" thread.

I will not claim that I can predict, with 100% accuracy, what the convention will end up like. However, I will say that a convention offers more flexibility than the Senate. The rules and procedures of the Senate are relatively rigid. (Proposals must wait for their turn on the agenda, the procedure for voting on amendments and motions is somewhat cumbersome, and so forth.) With a little more flexibility, I think that we may work out a reform proposal more efficiently. Or, we may end up by deciding that the current system is fine right now. Either way, a convention would probably put the issue to rest once and for all.

I dont know. It might be a good idea. Maybe we could set limits on how much the convention can do? Just a thought.

Yes, I don't think that there would be anything wrong with doing so.

[Emsworth]

The federal government cannot call a constitutional convention until a majority of the regions have requested it. Therefore, I would like to ask Governor Afleitch to open a referendum on whether the Mideast should request a constitutional convention. The vote could be held this weekend, along with the normal vote on propositions and initiatives.

[Emsworth]

Maybe we should have a vote on weather to have a vote.

I concur with Bono.

Might I ask why such a complicated procedure is necessary? Under this line of reasoning, we might as well have a vote on whether to have a vote on whether to have a vote. It would be more straightforward for each region to directly proceed to a vote on whether to request a constitutional convention or not.

The convention's decisions will not be final; the regions will have a chance to ratify or reject any proposed amendments.

[Emsworth]

How do these votes get held?

Regions may hold the votes according to their normal procedures for initiatives, propositions, or bills.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe that every region has a procedure by which private citizens may propose bills. The same procedure could be used to propose a vote on calling a constitutional convention.

[Emsworth]

I think we've had enough debate.  There are enough particiapnts for a constitutional convention to begin.

Unfortunately, the convention cannot be called until a majority of the regions request it. Currently, the Mideast and Midwest are holding votes on whether a convention should be called.

The Northeast is not holding a vote, but you could request one, as you reside there.