The Constitutional Convention (Completed)

[Purple State]

For...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is assumed that this may only be done with the consent of the region in question, correct? I know one of the other clauses would imply that, but just for clarification.

I believe so, though adding a previously non-existant state to a region is unlikely to be rejected. The other provisions are to make sure that states aren't harmed without their consent, but an addition is unlikely to be harmful.


Anyway, I now bring the preliminary draft of Article IV up for a vote. 48 hours or until a majority have voted for/against, etc. Aye, nay, abstain, etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ebowed]

Aye

[bgwah]

aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[afleitch]

Aye

[Purple State]

By a vote of 4-0 the preliminary Article IV passes. Please discuss and offer any amendments to Article IV. Debate will last a little less than 48 hours (more like 42 because of the coming of another Jewish holiday).

I will also be introducing Article V now to begin consideration and discussion of preliminary amendments:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The vote on preliminary Article V will begin at the same time as the vote on any amendments to Article IV (assuming there are any), so in ~42 hours.

[Fritz]

Mr. President, if I may be heard regarding Article V.  Specifically, regarding Section 2, clause 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It has long been my opinion that the rule of 8 months, 4 elections missed retains registrants who have left Atlasia, and are not coming back, for too long a period of time.  This artificially inflates the numbers of the voting rolls.  In cases where number of seats is actually determined by numbers of registered voters- I believe the Northeast does this- actual harm is caused.  This lengthy time requirement also is an irritant to people who have made a conscious decision to no longer participate in Atlasia, but still must endure our parties' GOTV efforts.
The 8-month, 4 election rule was an amendment replacing the original rule in the Second Constitution of 4 months.  I propose that we settle on a happy medium- six months, three elections.  I ask the delegates to consider amending the article accordingly.

[Purple State]

Mr. President, if I may be heard regarding Article V.  Specifically, regarding Section 2, clause 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It has long been my opinion that the rule of 8 months, 4 elections missed retains registrants who have left Atlasia, and are not coming back, for too long a period of time.  This artificially inflates the numbers of the voting rolls.  In cases where number of seats is actually determined by numbers of registered voters- I believe the Northeast does this- actual harm is caused.  This lengthy time requirement also is an irritant to people who have made a conscious decision to no longer participate in Atlasia, but still must endure our parties' GOTV efforts.
The 8-month, 4 election rule was an amendment replacing the original rule in the Second Constitution of 4 months.  I propose that we settle on a happy medium- six months, three elections.  I ask the delegates to consider amending the article accordingly.

Noted. I will entertain such an amendment (or offer it myself) during the more substantive debate period on Article V.

[ilikeverin]

Oh dear, how did I not notice this?

Textual revisions:

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And a more-substantive proposal:
Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

I personally support keeping the eight month number.

[Purple State]

Textual revisions:

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will accept all of these as friendly assuming no delegate objects.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

We will hold a vote on this beginning Wednesday afternoon. For those wondering what the change is, Marokai and I wrote into our draft constitution a change, "shall," that requires regions to establish an elected legislature. ILV wants to change it back to the status quo language, "may."

I think my stance on this should be fairly clear.

[ilikeverin]

I suggest that delegates should take a close look at my last suggestion for the "textual revisions", because that one is really awkward to phrase.  See if you can think of something better!

As to forcing Regions to have an elected legislature... I still think it's rather crazy to do that.  At the very least, I'm certain that if the amendment is sustained as is the Midwest will create a method of election that insures all Midwesterners are legislators   If we are to have Regions, let's keep them distinct, at least.

[Purple State]

As to forcing Regions to have an elected legislature... I still think it's rather crazy to do that.  At the very least, I'm certain that if the amendment is sustained as is the Midwest will create a method of election that insures all Midwesterners are legislators   If we are to have Regions, let's keep them distinct, at least.

I expect (and encourage) the Midwest (and possibly the Pacific) to do exactly that, but I do think it is worthwhile to have each region undergo periodic elections, if not for the fact that the practice will be useful for those newer members interested in become SoFE.

[Purple State]

The holiday kinda snuck up on me. Without objection, the first four of ILV's amendments to Article IV are accepted as friendly.

Please vote aye, nay or abstain, etc. on the following amendment to Article IV...
Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rather than hold a vote on a preliminary Article V, I will simply accept it as passed unless a delegate objects and I will open up the floor to substantive amendments on Article V.

[ilikeverin]

on my own amendment.  (The lack of debate is depressing!)


Amendment V is pretty well written, actually.  Here's the only textual revision I see:

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's a substantive amendment:

Strike the following clause:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe this one will provoke a little debate

[Purple State]

on my own amendment.  (The lack of debate is depressing!)

I concur. Apparently when you and I disagree all the world is calm.

[bgwah]

aye on the amendment

[Ebowed]

Aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay!

[Bacon King]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

Maybe this one will provoke a little debate

*sigh*

I think "provoking" anything in this thing is the last thing we should be doing. None of this is going to pass the public vote at this point. We're needlessly rewording every little thing. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why.

This could've been so much easier, you guys.

/resumes pulling my hair out

[ilikeverin]

Maybe this one will provoke a little debate

*sigh*

I think "provoking" anything in this thing is the last thing we should be doing. None of this is going to pass the public vote at this point. We're needlessly rewording every little thing. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why.

This could've been so much easier, you guys.

/resumes pulling my hair out

Again: if you didn't want a Constitutional Convention, you didn't have to call one.  It was that simple.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Maybe this one will provoke a little debate

*sigh*

I think "provoking" anything in this thing is the last thing we should be doing. None of this is going to pass the public vote at this point. We're needlessly rewording every little thing. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why. Why.

This could've been so much easier, you guys.

/resumes pulling my hair out

Again: if you didn't want a Constitutional Convention, you didn't have to call one.  It was that simple.

Most of your revisions are cosmetic changes that make it seem like we're changing alot of things, even though we're not. But perception is reality here. You are the one proposing these things, you don't have to made it needlessly difficult and time consuming unless you actually want to.

[Purple State]

I don't think this should have too much trouble passing the public. The changes make the document easier to read, easier for the courts to interpret and overall will improve the quality of the game.

By a vote of 4 to 1, ILV's amendment to Article IV passes (*hiss* *boo*)

I now open up a 48 hour vote on the final passage of Article IV, as worded below:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also open a 48 hour vote on the following amendments to Article V:

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Old:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

New:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also, I am bringing Article VI up for discussion and non-controversial amendments. If none are offered after 48 hours we will move directly to the regular amendment period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

If I may make a suggestion, would it be possible to address the issue where ILV needed 75% to vote against him for him to lose? Not that we don't all love our dearest Verin, but it seems kind of anti-democratic and harmful to the game... I think we should add something that would prohibit such practices. What do you guys think? I admittedly may have waited to long to suggest it, if so, not a big deal.