SB 2018-168: Office Reduction Amendment (Removed)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Special Provision: This Amendment to the Constitution will take effect at the next scheduled election for the House of Representatives after ratification. [/quote]

Sponsor: Senator Lumine.

[Lumine]

For all purposes this is an attempt to revive the amendment by Scott presented and debated last year, which the Senate passed only for the House to behave most irresponsibly and kill the proposal with a resounding rejection (minus Yankee). I think that was a mistake, and I'm determined to see this is attempted again so at least a couple of offices are eliminated in Atlasia.

I believe the present number of offices is simply not sustainable, and House Elections have for a while had only the minimum number of candidates or have been short. With nine Representatives the House is clearly the best place to start without dramatically altering the constitutional balance (for the Senate could not be concievably cut without serious concerns of representation by the regions). A House of seven members is clearly sustainable and can still be representative, having nine members should not be a rule set in stone.

Of course, I'd like to hear what other reductions we might achieve as well. I've considered the potential for setting a limit for the regions so regional legislatures cannot surpass five members, for example, but since that is a sensitive matter I'd like to hear opinions on that as well.

[Lumine]

Is there any input or feedback from the other Senators? Otherwise I might as well call a final vote soon if there aren't objections.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I think we should wait to vote on this bill until the House does since I personally don't believe it is the Senate's role to dictate the fate of the House.

[_]

I mostly agree with Senator LouisvilleThunder, however I personally don't see how reducing the number of total Offices would help Atlasia, especially in the department of participation, after all it'd just lower the number of possible chances for someone to be elected.

I also completely oppose the idea of the Federal Government deciding how many offices should exist in each Region, that should be up to their own legislatures.

[Bidenworth2020]

I just wanna mention that this was proposed in the house and is not likely to be passed there, so maybe we collaboration on this?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

If it comes up for a vote I will oppose it as I do not believe reducing the number of Representatives will be beneficial for Atlasia.

[Pericles]

I have to say that while I'm overall supportive of the Sulla Plan I'm not sure about this policy and I'd need more persuading to vote aye.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

If it comes up for a vote I will oppose it as I do not believe reducing the number of Representatives will be beneficial for Atlasia.

[Lumine]

Whilist I strongly disagree with what I feel is a defensive stand from the House (as I believe it is the institution in which it is easier to reduce offices), I can also recognize when there isn't exactly broad support for the proposal as it stands.

However, I do believe we as a nation need to be realistic with the number of offices to be filled as opposed to the number of players willing to fill them, and I think as well that we should admit that present levels of activity do not allow to properly and actively fill our current offices. Reducing officeholders will not solve activity because no single measure can, and I think a smaller, more efficient government is far more sensible than having extra offices just because.

So with that in mind, does anyone have alternate ideas on where we could reduce the number of offices, or achieve this in a fairer manner?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Unless someone changes their minds, the Amendment is presently failing in the House:

Aye: Myself, Rfayette and RC
Nay: Jake, Masta, Transit, Weatherboy1102

Yet to Vote:
Oakvale and Peebs


When did the left become so "conservative"?

[Lumine]

Unless someone changes their minds, the Amendment is presently failing in the House:

Aye: Myself, Rfayette and RC
Nay: Jake, Masta, Transit, Weatherboy1102

Yet to Vote:
Oakvale and Peebs


When did the left become so "conservative"?

It would indeed seem it will fail, although I wish it was not the case. However I'm not ready to depose the issue just yet. I'll continue looking for potential offices to cut, but I'd be happy to hear any alternate ideas.

[Lumine]

Still trying to get something written. If I can't submit anything in the coming days, I'll motion to table myself.

[Sestak]

This amendment is designed to entrench older, more established players while shutting out newer ones.

It's possibly the easiest way to reduce interest in the game.

[Lumine]

This amendment is designed to entrench older, more established players while shutting out newer ones.

It's possibly the easiest way to reduce interest in the game.

Is that so, though? It's far from certain older players get to have all the seats in the House of Representatives, and given that we constantly struggle to even field the nine candidates it's not like new Atlasians are getting shut out of being part of that body. Now, that won't be done because the House has declined to reduce its size, but I don't find it to be an anti-newbie measure in the slightest.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I motion to table this bill.

[Lumine]

On second thought, I don't think I can make this work in its present form, I shall try again in the future. I hereby invoke Article 2.2 of the Senate, allowing me to remove this bill from the Senate floor on the grounds of being "functionally impractical".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

On second thought, I don't think I can make this work in its present form, I shall try again in the future. I hereby invoke Article 2.2 of the Senate, allowing me to remove this bill from the Senate floor on the grounds of being "functionally impractical".

Clever.


Bacon King would be proud.