The Regional Protection Movement: The Rally to keep regional rights alive.

[CatoMinor]

What do regions provide Atlasia? Well lets see. Just to name a few..
- Get new people involved
- More focus on local issues
- Easier to address local problems
- Lightens the load of the Federal Government


Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Some argue that regional elections are boring and un-competitive. Some times, that is true, sometimes that isn't, but the same could be said for federal offices as well.

It has been said that people just move to the region that suits their political interest.  Apparently me being a conservative that moved from the IDS to the Pacific benefits me politically, somehow someone will have to explain that to me. Anywho.., if you care to take a look at who lives where I'm fairly sure, (Europeans excluded) most people, not all, but most, are registered in the regions they actually live in. Besides people move in RL, why not in the game?

In conclusion, LEAVE THE F&%#ING REGIONS ALONE. 

- The Committee To Keep Regions Safe

[Yelnoc]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

[CatoMinor]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

I'm not saying it justifies it, but that its simply not a problem that you can just say is isolated to the regions alone, so makes no sens e bringing up in his argument.

And pooling them all together looks nice, but when dealing with local problems is a lot less efficient. The legislatures know more about the specific region and act fast  because they only have to act on issues withing their boundaries.

[Yelnoc]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

I'm not saying it justifies it, but that its simply not a problem that you can just say is isolated to the regions alone, so makes no sens e bringing up in his argument.

And pooling them all together looks nice, but when dealing with local problems is a lot less efficient. The legislatures know more about the specific region and act fast  because they only have to act on issues withing their boundaries.

True, though regional issues are exceedingly rare.  All of the legislation I have worked towards in the IDS (with the exception of the name thing) were the kind of legislation that would have worked just as well in any other region.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If only there were some sort of political party based around the protection of regions..

[Associate Justice PiT]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

I'm not saying it justifies it, but that its simply not a problem that you can just say is isolated to the regions alone, so makes no sens e bringing up in his argument.

And pooling them all together looks nice, but when dealing with local problems is a lot less efficient. The legislatures know more about the specific region and act fast  because they only have to act on issues withing their boundaries.

True, though regional issues are exceedingly rare.  All of the legislation I have worked towards in the IDS (with the exception of the name thing) were the kind of legislation that would have worked just as well in any other region.

     The recent infrastructure acts could not have been passed in exactly the same form in another region. Bills like those require knowledge about the nature of the various areas of the region.

     But the main issue I see with the lower house proposal is that it's not clear that it would be a big improvement over regional legislatures. A large burden of proof exists on tohse who wish to make such a fundamental change.

     As an aside, there is a clear benefit to balkanizing Atlasia into regions; that being that it encourages people to develop close working relationships with others in their regions who may have very different political views. The smaller the sphere you work with, the more important it is to develop a network of alliances rather than just ride to victory backed by your supporters. That helps the brilliant stand out more easily than they would otherwise.

[Yelnoc]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

I'm not saying it justifies it, but that its simply not a problem that you can just say is isolated to the regions alone, so makes no sens e bringing up in his argument.

And pooling them all together looks nice, but when dealing with local problems is a lot less efficient. The legislatures know more about the specific region and act fast  because they only have to act on issues withing their boundaries.

True, though regional issues are exceedingly rare.  All of the legislation I have worked towards in the IDS (with the exception of the name thing) were the kind of legislation that would have worked just as well in any other region.

     The recent infrastructure acts could not have been passed in exactly the same form in another region. Bills like those require knowledge about the nature of the various areas of the region.

     But the main issue I see with the lower house proposal is that it's not clear that it would be a big improvement over regional legislatures. A large burden of proof exists on tohse who wish to make such a fundamental change.

     As an aside, there is a clear benefit to balkanizing Atlasia into regions; that being that it encourages people to develop close working relationships with others in their regions who may have very different political views. The smaller the sphere you work with, the more important it is to develop a network of alliances rather than just ride to victory backed by your supporters. That helps the brilliant stand out more easily than they would otherwise.

Very good point.  As I said, I'm more playing devil's advocate than anything.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

I'm not saying it justifies it, but that its simply not a problem that you can just say is isolated to the regions alone, so makes no sens e bringing up in his argument.

And pooling them all together looks nice, but when dealing with local problems is a lot less efficient. The legislatures know more about the specific region and act fast  because they only have to act on issues withing their boundaries.

True, though regional issues are exceedingly rare.  All of the legislation I have worked towards in the IDS (with the exception of the name thing) were the kind of legislation that would have worked just as well in any other region.

     The recent infrastructure acts could not have been passed in exactly the same form in another region. Bills like those require knowledge about the nature of the various areas of the region.

     But the main issue I see with the lower house proposal is that it's not clear that it would be a big improvement over regional legislatures. A large burden of proof exists on tohse who wish to make such a fundamental change.

     As an aside, there is a clear benefit to balkanizing Atlasia into regions; that being that it encourages people to develop close working relationships with others in their regions who may have very different political views. The smaller the sphere you work with, the more important it is to develop a network of alliances rather than just ride to victory backed by your supporters. That helps the brilliant stand out more easily than they would otherwise.

Perhaps the "Lower House" could be resolved into committees to engage in local issues. This could be left to nationally-elected officers who enter this role differently but perhaps serve a similar purpose.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

I'm not saying it justifies it, but that its simply not a problem that you can just say is isolated to the regions alone, so makes no sens e bringing up in his argument.

And pooling them all together looks nice, but when dealing with local problems is a lot less efficient. The legislatures know more about the specific region and act fast  because they only have to act on issues withing their boundaries.

True, though regional issues are exceedingly rare.  All of the legislation I have worked towards in the IDS (with the exception of the name thing) were the kind of legislation that would have worked just as well in any other region.

     The recent infrastructure acts could not have been passed in exactly the same form in another region. Bills like those require knowledge about the nature of the various areas of the region.

     But the main issue I see with the lower house proposal is that it's not clear that it would be a big improvement over regional legislatures. A large burden of proof exists on tohse who wish to make such a fundamental change.

     As an aside, there is a clear benefit to balkanizing Atlasia into regions; that being that it encourages people to develop close working relationships with others in their regions who may have very different political views. The smaller the sphere you work with, the more important it is to develop a network of alliances rather than just ride to victory backed by your supporters. That helps the brilliant stand out more easily than they would otherwise.

Perhaps the "Lower House" could be resolved into committees to engage in local issues. This could be left to nationally-elected officers who enter this role differently but perhaps serve a similar purpose.

     Which seems utterly fruitless. Local issues are much less important than local variations in flavour, so to speak. Committees in general could help mitigate the problem, though ultimately only if they were set up in such a fashion as to become the new regions.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

I'm not saying it justifies it, but that its simply not a problem that you can just say is isolated to the regions alone, so makes no sens e bringing up in his argument.

And pooling them all together looks nice, but when dealing with local problems is a lot less efficient. The legislatures know more about the specific region and act fast  because they only have to act on issues withing their boundaries.

True, though regional issues are exceedingly rare.  All of the legislation I have worked towards in the IDS (with the exception of the name thing) were the kind of legislation that would have worked just as well in any other region.

     The recent infrastructure acts could not have been passed in exactly the same form in another region. Bills like those require knowledge about the nature of the various areas of the region.

     But the main issue I see with the lower house proposal is that it's not clear that it would be a big improvement over regional legislatures. A large burden of proof exists on tohse who wish to make such a fundamental change.

     As an aside, there is a clear benefit to balkanizing Atlasia into regions; that being that it encourages people to develop close working relationships with others in their regions who may have very different political views. The smaller the sphere you work with, the more important it is to develop a network of alliances rather than just ride to victory backed by your supporters. That helps the brilliant stand out more easily than they would otherwise.

Perhaps the "Lower House" could be resolved into committees to engage in local issues. This could be left to nationally-elected officers who enter this role differently but perhaps serve a similar purpose.

     Which seems utterly fruitless. Local issues are much less important than local variations in flavour, so to speak. Committees in general could help mitigate the problem, though ultimately only if they were set up in such a fashion as to become the new regions.

The regions as they exist right now craft very basic bills to suit every general infrastructure needs. These needs can easily be extrapolated to the national level. Atlasian lawmaking has not reached the point where multiple-page treatises are being written on the pros and cons of Iowan irrigation. Instead, the issues are resigned to being large-scale fixes that are not necessarily unique to each region. The point where some niceties of the area need to be preserved is the point where the committees step in. Local color isn't a large part of the regional lawmaking process, and the Lower House system wouldn't compromise any regional lawmaking that does exist. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

Now, some say that the regions suffer from inactivity. Really??, I mean come on, have you not paid any attention to the federal governments activity?

Sure the federal government suffers from low activity but I don't see how that justifies it.  Now, I'm playing the devil's advocate here because I haven't made up my mind to support Agooji's proposal, but would bringing all of the active legislators of the various regional assemblies together into one lower house foster a lot more activity then dividing them up into five groups?  Why can't a lower federal house get new people involved and lighten the load of the senate?

I'm not saying it justifies it, but that its simply not a problem that you can just say is isolated to the regions alone, so makes no sens e bringing up in his argument.

And pooling them all together looks nice, but when dealing with local problems is a lot less efficient. The legislatures know more about the specific region and act fast  because they only have to act on issues withing their boundaries.

True, though regional issues are exceedingly rare.  All of the legislation I have worked towards in the IDS (with the exception of the name thing) were the kind of legislation that would have worked just as well in any other region.

     The recent infrastructure acts could not have been passed in exactly the same form in another region. Bills like those require knowledge about the nature of the various areas of the region.

     But the main issue I see with the lower house proposal is that it's not clear that it would be a big improvement over regional legislatures. A large burden of proof exists on tohse who wish to make such a fundamental change.

     As an aside, there is a clear benefit to balkanizing Atlasia into regions; that being that it encourages people to develop close working relationships with others in their regions who may have very different political views. The smaller the sphere you work with, the more important it is to develop a network of alliances rather than just ride to victory backed by your supporters. That helps the brilliant stand out more easily than they would otherwise.

Perhaps the "Lower House" could be resolved into committees to engage in local issues. This could be left to nationally-elected officers who enter this role differently but perhaps serve a similar purpose.

     Which seems utterly fruitless. Local issues are much less important than local variations in flavour, so to speak. Committees in general could help mitigate the problem, though ultimately only if they were set up in such a fashion as to become the new regions.

The regions as they exist right now craft very basic bills to suit every general infrastructure needs. These needs can easily be extrapolated to the national level. Atlasian lawmaking has not reached the point where multiple-page treatises are being written on the pros and cons of Iowan irrigation. Instead, the issues are resigned to being large-scale fixes that are not necessarily unique to each region. The point where some niceties of the area need to be preserved is the point where the committees step in. Local color isn't a large part of the regional lawmaking process, and the Lower House system wouldn't compromise any regional lawmaking that does exist. 

     But the thing is that there are some bills that would pass in some regions & not in others. Recently we have had bills restricting abortion pass in the Mideast & bills reducing those restrictions pass in the South. It's those sorts of variations that I find to be quite interesting in Atlasia, & a large part of the reason I'd like to see more lawmaking power ceded to the regions. I suppose it's a matter of personal opinion, though.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've no desire to abolish regions, but Yelnoc kind of has a good point. Though the regional opinions of something may differ from the national opinion, there's not really "local issues" in this game. Different region-specific opinions on general issues (like abortion, as PiT mentioned) may pass from time to time, but 95% of the time, the legislation I've seen pass regional legislatures could be transplanted directly into another regional legislature with minimal editing.

The only "local issues" I've ever seen is a region passing something incredibly stupid. The South trying to produce it's own currency, or basically trying to wage a trade war on the Pacific, for example. Or the Northeast trying to, essentially, ban unions from striking, or trying to defy the national constitution by one of it's members holding two offices simultaneously. But these are just issues of general contrariness. That's the only thing that's came out of regions that became important, as far as I remember.

I'm not making an argument for or against regional legislatures or governments in general, here. But it is kind of a good point that they don't really do anything unique.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What do regions provide Atlasia? Well lets see. Just to name a few..
- Get new people involved
- More focus on local issues
- Easier to address local problems
- Lightens the load of the Federal Government

The last three arguments don't make much sense, but the first one is strong enough for me.