Amendment Amendment [Failed]

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Jas

[Marokai Backbeat]

This amendment has my full support. It's true reform, a simple and effective solution to a genuine problem. Well done, Jas and Al.

[Meeker]

So this just makes a 60% nationwide vote needed? Regional percentages/passages have no relevance?

[Marokai Backbeat]

So this just makes a 60% nationwide vote needed? Regional percentages/passages have no relevance?

Correct, it's a little wordy, but it essentially eliminates the requirement for it to pass 4/5 regions and changes it to 60% of the total popular vote. This eliminates the anti-democratic system of regional ratification, where two regions with low turnout/population can block changes simply because of regional boundaries even when the public at large is supportive.

[Rowan]

I oppose this infringement on regional rights.

[Hash]

I fully support this amendment. It's a much needed democratic reform.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I oppose this infringement on regional rights.

Regional Rights > Democracy?

[tmthforu94]

I support this amendment, because it would be extremely unfair if 75% of Atlasia citizens supported something, but it was denied because low-turnout in two regions swayed the vote.

[Rowan]

I oppose this infringement on regional rights.

Regional Rights > Democracy?

We have regions for a reason. They should not be bypassed.

[Rowan]

I support this amendment, because it would be extremely unfair if 75% of Atlasia citizens supported something, but it was denied because low-turnout in two regions swayed the vote.

Disappointing that a member of the Regional Protection Party would support this.

[tmthforu94]

I support this amendment, because it would be extremely unfair if 75% of Atlasia citizens supported something, but it was denied because low-turnout in two regions swayed the vote.

Disappointing that a member of the Regional Protection Party would support this.

I'm not a member of the Regional Protection Party. I am a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.
And anyways, I don't see how this bill infringes on the regions. It was silly that you had to have 4/5 regional support to begin with.

[Rowan]

I support this amendment, because it would be extremely unfair if 75% of Atlasia citizens supported something, but it was denied because low-turnout in two regions swayed the vote.

Disappointing that a member of the Regional Protection Party would support this.

I'm not a member of the Regional Protection Party. I am a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.
And anyways, I don't see how this bill infringes on the regions. It was silly that you had to have 4/5 regional support to begin with.

You don't see how it infringes? It makes regions irrelevant which is the master plan of these people. Open your damn eyes man.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am strongly against this infringement on Regional Rights.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support this amendment, because it would be extremely unfair if 75% of Atlasia citizens supported something, but it was denied because low-turnout in two regions swayed the vote.

Disappointing that a member of the Regional Protection Party would support this.

I'm not a member of the Regional Protection Party. I am a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.
And anyways, I don't see how this bill infringes on the regions. It was silly that you had to have 4/5 regional support to begin with.

This is exactly why I went along with DWTL's last ditch effort to prevent our name change. I feared it would lead to complacency and in general an abandonement of the very same cause that allowed the RPP to rise being a three person joke.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, NCY, you believe it's right to stop major changes purely on the basis of where regional boundaries are drawn and not on the basis of how the country at large actually votes?

[Rowan]

So, NCY, you believe it's right to stop major changes purely on the basis of where regional boundaries are drawn and not on the basis of how the country at large actually votes?

Is that not how America works?

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, NCY, you believe it's right to stop major changes purely on the basis of where regional boundaries are drawn and not on the basis of how the country at large actually votes?

Is that not how America works?

Individual states is a little different than 5 regions (made up of just a couple dozen people) heavily divided by how people register and move. It's more democratic in the American system, but doing it via state isn't really practical for Atlasia.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, NCY, you believe it's right to stop major changes purely on the basis of where regional boundaries are drawn and not on the basis of how the country at large actually votes?

Is that not how America works?

This is closer to being a Socialist Utopia then being America.

[Purple State]

I strongly oppose this proposal. Atlasia is greater than the sum of its parts, meaning it is not simply about the total number of people. The game is run at both an at-large and a regional level, as reflected in the Senate and the current wording of Article VII, Section 1. In addition, a successful democratic system is not about protecting the voice of the majority, but rather, it should be focused on preventing the abuse of minority rights.

This amendment would betray both of those goals and allow the more populous regions to impose their will on the smaller ones, simply by virtue of their "majority" status. It is for that reason I believe this is detrimental "reform."

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, NCY, you believe it's right to stop major changes purely on the basis of where regional boundaries are drawn and not on the basis of how the country at large actually votes?

Is that not how America works?

This is closer to being a Socialist Utopia then being America.

I'm still working on that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So, NCY, you believe it's right to stop major changes purely on the basis of where regional boundaries are drawn and not on the basis of how the country at large actually votes?

Is that not how America works?

This is closer to being a Socialist Utopia then being America.

I'm still working on that.

Over my dead body, or better yet, yours.

I strongly oppose this proposal. Atlasia is greater than the sum of its parts, meaning it is not simply about the total number of people. The game is run at both an at-large and a regional level, as reflected in the Senate and the current wording of Article VII, Section 1. In addition, a successful democratic system is not about protecting the voice of the majority, but rather, it should be focused on preventing the abuse of minority rights.

This amendment would betray both of those goals and allow the more populous regions to impose their will on the smaller ones, simply by virtue of their "majority" status. It is for that reason I believe this is detrimental "reform."

Thank god of Purple State and his ability to interject some reason into this debate. I need to come down of the mountain of anger before I can make such quality arguements. .

[Marokai Backbeat]

I strongly oppose this proposal. Atlasia is greater than the sum of its parts, meaning it is not simply about the total number of people. The game is run at both an at-large and a regional level, as reflected in the Senate and the current wording of Article VII, Section 1. In addition, a successful democratic system is not about protecting the voice of the majority, but rather, it should be focused on preventing the abuse of minority rights.

This amendment would betray both of those goals and allow the more populous regions to impose their will on the smaller ones, simply by virtue of their "majority" status. It is for that reason I believe this is detrimental "reform."

At some point, majority rule is simply majority rule. We can't spend all our time cow-towing to a significant minority, or we'd accomplish nothing.

What you said is, to some extent, the point and the problem. Atlasia is not a real country, at some point the realization that we are simply a forum game must come into play, and the ability for a small minority to concentrate in a region or two and consistently block change is not the protection of the minority, it's obstructionism.

This amendment required 60%+ of the popular vote to pass an amendment, that is a significant amount of "ayes" required, and just because some people can game the system by abusing the regional boundaries it shouldn't prevent changes demanded by the strong majority.

Put simply, Atlasia is a different case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I strongly oppose this proposal. Atlasia is greater than the sum of its parts, meaning it is not simply about the total number of people. The game is run at both an at-large and a regional level, as reflected in the Senate and the current wording of Article VII, Section 1. In addition, a successful democratic system is not about protecting the voice of the majority, but rather, it should be focused on preventing the abuse of minority rights.

This amendment would betray both of those goals and allow the more populous regions to impose their will on the smaller ones, simply by virtue of their "majority" status. It is for that reason I believe this is detrimental "reform."

At some point, majority rule is simply majority rule. We can't spend all our time cow-towing to a significant minority, or we'd accomplish nothing.

What you said is, to some extent, the point and the problem. Atlasia is not a real country, at some point the realization that we are simply a forum game must come into play, and the ability for a small minority to concentrate in a region or two and consistently block change is not the protection of the minority, it's obstructionism.

This amendment required 60%+ of the popular vote to pass an amendment, that is a significant amount of "ayes" required, and just because some people can game the system by abusing the regional boundaries it shouldn't prevent changes demanded by the strong majority.

Put simply, Atlasia is a different case.

Yes but at some point though we must still promote some of our shared values that are often bedrocks of democracy such as separation of powers at all levels of Gov't and decentralised Gov't with regions/states excersizing more power then the federal Gov't. Both of which you and others forget at various intervals or pit one against the other. These are as essential as the right to vote, free speech, and freedom of Religion. This may be a forum game but it still should reflect what we believe Gov't should be.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why do "regional rights" matter?

[Purple State]

I strongly oppose this proposal. Atlasia is greater than the sum of its parts, meaning it is not simply about the total number of people. The game is run at both an at-large and a regional level, as reflected in the Senate and the current wording of Article VII, Section 1. In addition, a successful democratic system is not about protecting the voice of the majority, but rather, it should be focused on preventing the abuse of minority rights.

This amendment would betray both of those goals and allow the more populous regions to impose their will on the smaller ones, simply by virtue of their "majority" status. It is for that reason I believe this is detrimental "reform."

At some point, majority rule is simply majority rule. We can't spend all our time cow-towing to a significant minority, or we'd accomplish nothing.

What you said is, to some extent, the point and the problem. Atlasia is not a real country, at some point the realization that we are simply a forum game must come into play, and the ability for a small minority to concentrate in a region or two and consistently block change is not the protection of the minority, it's obstructionism.

This amendment required 60%+ of the popular vote to pass an amendment, that is a significant amount of "ayes" required, and just because some people can game the system by abusing the regional boundaries it shouldn't prevent changes demanded by the strong majority.

Put simply, Atlasia is a different case.

It shouldn't be easy to amend the Constitution. If a sizable enough group, despite its minority status, is able to shift two regions against an amendment, it is right that the amendment should fail and I would go so far as to question just how "small" that group actually is. This isn't about kow-towing to a significant minority. It is about how easily a majority can alter the Constitution. I would argue it should be significantly difficult.

As to what sort of game Atlasia is, I find it a moot point as we do still have majority and minority beliefs. That is no different than anywhere else in the world. Considering the current objective of Atlasia, which appears to be a simulation of a democratic system, it should be recognized that, surely in the case of constitutional amendments, majority power should not trump minority rights.