Constitutional Convention Update Center

[Democratic Hawk]

Given that a majority (i.e. 3 of the 5 Regions) has applied for a Constitutional Convention, I understand, the procedure defined under Article VII Section 2 of the Second Constitution will come into effect:

That is correct. However, before a Convention may be called, the Senate must determine how the delegates will be chosen.

Thanks . Is there anything 'set in stone' as to how the Senate shall chose delegates or does the Senate pretty much have a 'free hand' in doing this?

Dave 'Hawk'

[MasterJedi]

I'll introduce Emsworth's model that he posted in the government section but next session after the PPT and budget stuff is through because there isn't enough time in this session to pass it. I do think though that the Senate needs to look at certain things and make sure the whole constitution just can't be thrown out and give some direction to the convention.

[Emsworth]

I do think though that the Senate needs to look at certain things and make sure the whole constitution just can't be thrown out and give some direction to the convention.

I agree. I think that the Convention should specifically consider the system of government (parliamentary v. presidential), election rules, and voting rights. Also, while we're at it, the Convention might consider minor changes to other provisions.

[jerusalemcar5]

I do think though that the Senate needs to look at certain things and make sure the whole constitution just can't be thrown out and give some direction to the convention.

I agree. I think that the Convention should specifically consider the system of government (parliamentary v. presidential), election rules, and voting rights. Also, while we're at it, the Convention might consider minor changes to other provisions.

i think we need to consider regions/distrcits as well as voting rights.  I see no reason to keep regions.  Some are too small and others too large as its cumbersome to have the states from the same region in different districts.  I would assume many of you would be against abolisihing such an ingrained institution, but I think we should at least discuss modification.

[MasterJedi]

I do think though that the Senate needs to look at certain things and make sure the whole constitution just can't be thrown out and give some direction to the convention.

I agree. I think that the Convention should specifically consider the system of government (parliamentary v. presidential), election rules, and voting rights. Also, while we're at it, the Convention might consider minor changes to other provisions.

i think we need to consider regions/distrcits as well as voting rights.  I see no reason to keep regions.  Some are too small and others too large as its cumbersome to have the states from the same region in different districts.  I would assume many of you would be against abolisihing such an ingrained institution, but I think we should at least discuss modification.

And that will not be discussed, I don't think anybody besides you wants to get rid of regions. And they all have the same number of states so there is no region with too many states. This is something that I know will not be discussed thank God.

[jerusalemcar5]

I do think though that the Senate needs to look at certain things and make sure the whole constitution just can't be thrown out and give some direction to the convention.

I agree. I think that the Convention should specifically consider the system of government (parliamentary v. presidential), election rules, and voting rights. Also, while we're at it, the Convention might consider minor changes to other provisions.

i think we need to consider regions/distrcits as well as voting rights.  I see no reason to keep regions.  Some are too small and others too large as its cumbersome to have the states from the same region in different districts.  I would assume many of you would be against abolisihing such an ingrained institution, but I think we should at least discuss modification.

And that will not be discussed, I don't think anybody besides you wants to get rid of regions. And they all have the same number of states so there is no region with too many states. This is something that I know will not be discussed thank God.

I meant too large based on number of registered voters, not number of states.  I think the regional governments should just be shifted to folow the district outlines.  Is there a reason to have regions separate from districts? (I mean that in a "I'd really like to know" way, not a snotty way)

[afleitch]

I meant too large based on number of registered voters, not number of states.  I think the regional governments should just be shifted to folow the district outlines.  Is there a reason to have regions separate from districts? (I mean that in a "I'd really like to know" way, not a snotty way)

As district boundaries shift every few months it would be unreasonable to shift the regions. Regional government has its own system of laws and governance as well as it's own history. It would not be beneficial to find a state having certain laws on an issue such as abortion one month, then find that different laws are the case the next month because they find themselves under a new region due to 'regional re-districting.'

[jerusalemcar5]

I meant too large based on number of registered voters, not number of states.  I think the regional governments should just be shifted to folow the district outlines.  Is there a reason to have regions separate from districts? (I mean that in a "I'd really like to know" way, not a snotty way)

As district boundaries shift every few months it would be unreasonable to shift the regions. Regional government has its own system of laws and governance as well as it's own history. It would not be beneficial to find a state having certain laws on an issue such as abortion one month, then find that different laws are the case the next month because they find themselves under a new region due to 'regional re-districting.'

Well that certainly makes sense.  Though, I'm assuming district boundaries aren't changed because of one or two voters (if they are that should be changed), and probably don't undergo very frequent or at least dramatic changes.  I would redraw regional boundaries to allow them to be close at least for now, and then we don't have to deal with a massive Southeast and a Pacific which barely has voters.  Possible changing regional boundaries every 2 years?  I know this is very unporpular and would enevr garner anywhere near the support to pass, but i tihnk there should at least be some kind of discussion and i'm just throwing out some ideas.

[Emsworth]

I see no reason to keep regions.

If we do not have regions, then the ability to participate in government will be restricted to just ten or twenty federal officials. With regional government, every single voter may participate directly in proposing and making legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why or how is it cumbersome?

[jerusalemcar5]

I see no reason to keep regions.

If we do not have regions, then the ability to participate in government will be restricted to just ten or twenty federal officials. With regional government, every single voter may participate directly in proposing and making legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why or how is it cumbersome?

I stated that I wanted to shift regional lines to district lines, not drop regional government.

I would say it is cumbersome because you have some voters who have to change where they are voting for no real reason.  Why shouldn't PA stay in either the Mideast or Northeast? 

It's all not that big of a deal, though.

[Colin]

I meant too large based on number of registered voters, not number of states.  I think the regional governments should just be shifted to folow the district outlines.  Is there a reason to have regions separate from districts? (I mean that in a "I'd really like to know" way, not a snotty way)

As district boundaries shift every few months it would be unreasonable to shift the regions. Regional government has its own system of laws and governance as well as it's own history. It would not be beneficial to find a state having certain laws on an issue such as abortion one month, then find that different laws are the case the next month because they find themselves under a new region due to 'regional re-districting.'

Well that certainly makes sense.  Though, I'm assuming district boundaries aren't changed because of one or two voters (if they are that should be changed), and probably don't undergo very frequent or at least dramatic changes.  I would redraw regional boundaries to allow them to be close at least for now, and then we don't have to deal with a massive Southeast and a Pacific which barely has voters.  Possible changing regional boundaries every 2 years?  I know this is very unporpular and would enevr garner anywhere near the support to pass, but i tihnk there should at least be some kind of discussion and i'm just throwing out some ideas.

Alright your idea is ludacrous to say the least. Regions will stay and that's final. To combat a few of the points made a district does change because of one or two voters and they have changed constantly since I have been in Atlasia. Let me give you a few examples.

This is my district, District Two, now:



This is District Two a year ago:



This is District Two when I first came to Atlasia:



As you can see the district boundaries and thus the new region-like districts of your plan would change drastically. Voters in Illinois could likely inherit laws passed by people in Pennsylvania and vice versa which, to me, is against the spirit of participatory democracy where the only laws a citizens should follow are those that either he or his designated representative have aquiesced to.

As for the district change every two years that would be nearly impossible. Atlasia itself has barely lasted two years. The oldest Atlasians are now past their two year anniversery mark. This would do absolutely nothing. This would make these districts actually less able to change than regions where a state, with the consent of the governors of the two regions involved, may change regions, as Delaware and New Mexico have. These districts would mostly be set in stone.

Personally I don't know what you have against Regions especially since this plan of yours would basically create new regions under a different name. Yes some of the districts may have more registered voters but that means very little. The Northeast has long been known for having the largest registered voter population. However its politics are known for being frought with inactivity and lack of interest whereas the Southeast, which has a much smaller "population" has much more active and interesting politics than any other region in my mind.

Overall the regions basically serve the same perpose as states and while all states may not have equal population, nor should they, they are each allowed to have their own government and their own laws. Your idea wont get any support because, I'm sorry to say, it is just silly.

I'm sorry if I've offended you in any way since that is not my intention since new active members in Atlasia are always welcome I am just trying to show you the reasons your idea isn't popular and what faults lie in your reasoning.

[jerusalemcar5]

First I'd like to say:

I QUIT! OK! BAD IDEA! I RETRACT IT!

But I will also respond to a couple of things Colin said while I'm posting.

Firstly, by focusing just on the numbers the changes appear more drastic than they truly are.  If you look at the states grouped together, the recent changes are not so severe.

Secondly, I don't have anything against regions, just their boundaries.

Thirdly, I would would support regional changes every so often (like two years or maybe one), but district changes would be more frequent. 

Also, voters could change the laws.  Admittedly, this could be difficult, which is another reason i'm retracting the idea.

Finally, I take no offense at all to your, or anyone else's, comments in this thread.