The Constitutional Convention (Completed)

[Purple State]

"#The Senate shall be divided into two classes: Class A, which shall comprise the Senators elected from the Regions, and Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected by a form of proportional representation."

Would it be wise to throw in "as determined by the Senate" for the proportional representation part, since it doesn't specify what kind of proportional representation?

I think this takes care of that:

"#The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Senate elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Senate shall be by public post. The exact time at which a given election or vote shall begin may be determined by the voting booth administrator subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by Law"

[Ebowed]

Also, Verin, I don't think this is the proper venue to propose such a radical shift. This Convention was convened in the manner it was (quickly and with a small number of delegates) so it could perform the basically custodial task of tidying up the Constitution. If we attempt too much of a controversial change here, we risk having the voters throw out our proposed document, leaving the Constitution in the exact confusing state it was before and nothing having been accomplished.

If we don't eliminate regional seats now, when are we going to do so?

It is not 'radical' reform, it is practical and the transition to all at-large or population based districts would be seamless.

[Purple State]

Alright, with no motions since yesterday, I hereby call a vote on the preliminary consolidated draft of Article I as posted in this post and my subsequent post.

Please vote aye, nay or abstain, or any discernible version of those.

EDIT: This vote will last for 48 hours or until a majority of all delegates has been reached.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ilikeverin]

[Purple State]

For the delegates and all Convention-watchers, I have created a Wiki page for all completed documents produced by the Convention. It will serve as a central processing hub for the work done here.

Check it out.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Aye.

[Bacon King]

aye

[Ebowed]

Aye

[bgwah]

aye

[ilikeverin]

How detailed do people want me to get with my "translation" into plainer English?  For example, "shall" is a nice auxiliary verb and all, but it can easily be replaced with "will", "may", and "must" depending on the situation, which can only increase comprehensibility.

[afleitch]

Aye

Can I say to Convention delegates that I may not have full access to the interwebs this week.

[Purple State]

With 6 ayes, the preliminary Article I is passed unanimously. The floor is now open to debate and motions for Article I. This will remain open for 72 hours or until substantive debate has concluded, whichever is longer.

How detailed do people want me to get with my "translation" into plainer English?  For example, "shall" is a nice auxiliary verb and all, but it can easily be replaced with "will", "may", and "must" depending on the situation, which can only increase comprehensibility.

I would say we should keep "shall" wherever it seems appropriate, as it does have parliamentary and judicial connotations. But that is not to say that all of them should stay. Let's see what you come up with and work from there.

Aye

Can I say to Convention delegates that I may not have full access to the interwebs this week.

Duly noted.

[ilikeverin]

Alright.  In reading the articles, the following issues have come up that should probably be considered separately from each other and from my "translation" idea:

I know the dates of elections are traditional, but I can't help but feel that it would make this clause a lot less convoluted if we simply changed the date of all elections to be the second Thursday in the month.  I see that absentee voting is in the Constitution in later articles; would delegates be open to eliminating that and expanding the "regular voting booth"?  (as it is, absentee voting essentially amounts to an extended voting booth, in my estimation...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I came up with an alternate method of filling vacancies in Regional Senate seats, which gives more freedom for the Regions to decide for themselves how their governments should be structured:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't the Mideast the "owner" of the District of Columbia?  Maybe we should clarify this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, the Budget is still in the Constitution?  Is this still followed? :S

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

Alright.  In reading the articles, the following issues have come up that should probably be considered separately from each other and from my "translation" idea:

I know the dates of elections are traditional, but I can't help but feel that it would make this clause a lot less convoluted if we simply changed the date of all elections to be the second Thursday in the month.  I see that absentee voting is in the Constitution in later articles; would delegates be open to eliminating that and expanding the "regular voting booth"?  (as it is, absentee voting essentially amounts to an extended voting booth, in my estimation...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this, as written, doesn't implement the "second Thursday of every month" approach, but is simply a slightly better worded version of the current clause. I am supportive of the idea (which basically cuts out an entire half of the section and makes our elections more regular) and think you should write up language to offer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Seems plausible, though I do have concerns similar to those that I had when there were attempts to do optional multi-region regional seats. This can be discussed in debate further.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Someone (ilv?) write up an amendment and we can go from there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Well howd'ya like that?


If you write up and make formal motions on each of those amendments, I can bring them all up for debate. The ideal scenario is to debate everything on this article and then hold a large vote at the very end where they are all voted on separately, but at once. And then we would move on to the next article.

[ilikeverin]

The first one is actually just verbatim what it's asking now.  Changing it would be pretty trivial; I'm just wondering whether anyone would have any interest

[afleitch]

I know the dates of elections are traditional, but I can't help but feel that it would make this clause a lot less convoluted if we simply changed the date of all elections to be the second Thursday in the month.  I see that absentee voting is in the Constitution in later articles; would delegates be open to eliminating that and expanding the "regular voting booth"?  (as it is, absentee voting essentially amounts to an extended voting booth, in my estimation...)

I would agree with you on fixing it to the second Thursday with a corresponding uniform date of those elected taking office. I would also agree that the absentee voting booth is too broad. I would certainly retain it, but I would narrow the period under which a vote can be cast. As for the genral election period, I would retain that at 72 hours.

Wait, the Budget is still in the Constitution?  Is this still followed? :S

Given that 'time to time' is so vague, I would retain it. This particular section empowers the GM to make statements on public spending based on legislation even if the Senate doesn't wish to pass a budget.

[ilikeverin]

I know the dates of elections are traditional, but I can't help but feel that it would make this clause a lot less convoluted if we simply changed the date of all elections to be the second Thursday in the month.  I see that absentee voting is in the Constitution in later articles; would delegates be open to eliminating that and expanding the "regular voting booth"?  (as it is, absentee voting essentially amounts to an extended voting booth, in my estimation...)

I would agree with you on fixing it to the second Thursday with a corresponding uniform date of those elected taking office.

Right now, it actually says "the next Friday in the same month", so we don't need to fix this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution only says that the Senate will create some system of absentee voting, so that's something that Senators should work on

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that 'time to time' is so vague, I would retain it. This particular section empowers the GM to make statements on public spending based on legislation even if the Senate doesn't wish to pass a budget.
[/quote]

I guess "time to time" is pretty vague... can't hurt to have some flexibility.


I move to amend Section 4, Article 2 to the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't that nicer to look at?

[Purple State]

Alright, the chair notes the presence of this motion to amend Section 4, Clause 3 on the floor:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In light of that amendment, I will make the following motion to amend Section 4, Clause 7.

It currently states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My amendment states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are there any additional motions to amend for this Article?

[ilikeverin]

Oh, are we voting on all of them at once?

If so, I move to amend Section 4, Article 4 to the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think would be the best way to present my "translation" modifications?

[Purple State]

Oh, are we voting on all of them at once?

If so, I move to amend Section 4, Article 4 to the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you think would be the best way to present my "translation" modifications?

Yes, I'm hoping to have them all presented and debated, followed by one big vote where you can vote on each separately but at the same time.

I would say present them each separately. And we can discuss/modify them once there is something on the table.

[Sam Spade]

If the ConCon would do something for me - it would be to reword the 22nd amendment (now Clauses 30 and 31), which is horribly confusing.

[Purple State]

If the ConCon would do something for me - it would be to reword the 22nd amendment (now Clauses 30 and 31), which is horribly confusing.

On this subject, would anyone be opposed to scrapping that whole section and replacing it with a somewhat better worded Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution? It just seems overly worded for what we want the Senate to be able to do.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

If the ConCon would do something for me - it would be to reword the 22nd amendment (now Clauses 30 and 31), which is horribly confusing.

On this subject, would anyone be opposed to scrapping that whole section and replacing it with a somewhat better worded Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution? It just seems overly worded for what we want the Senate to be able to do.

I would support that.

[ilikeverin]

I found the 30th and 31st clauses some of the more straightforward, especially when compared to the ones we borrowed from that "United States" simulation :S

Here, let me post what I have for "translation" of section 5. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have all the other sections done, but like you mentioned it might be best if they were presented one by one, so...