Senate Resolution Calling for a Constitutional Convention.

[Defarge]

Senate Resolution Calling for a Constitutional Convention

1. This Senate calls upon the President to call a Constitutional Convention forthwith.

2. The Senate calls upon the Governors to send delegates to this Convention in the following numbers:
Northeast - 4
Mideast - 2
Southeast - 2
Pacific - 2
Midwest - 1

3. The Senate urges that the Convention elect a President as its Presiding Officer.

4. The Senate urges that the Constitutional Convention shall have its first meeting by the 17th January, 2005.

I hereby call for this to be put to a vote immediately

[PBrunsel]

I hope the Senate passes this resolution so that we can get thing over with.

[minionofmidas - supplemental forum account]

I hope the Senate passes this resolution so that we can get thing over with.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I support this

[Colin]

I support this 100% and I hope the Senate votes unanimously for this Resolution.

[Defarge]

I call for the Yeas and Nays

Yea

[JohnFKennedy]

I call for the Yeas and Nays

Yea

Only the President of the Senate or the President Pro Tempore can call a vote on something......As we haven't got a President Pro Tempore yet we must wait for the Vice President to call a vote or for a PPT to be elected.

[True Democrat]

I urge the entire Senate to vote Yea on this.

[Colin]

I urge VP Keystone Phil to open up the vote on this immediately.

[Gabu]

I don't think we really need to debate this; let's just bring it to a vote so we can vote "yea" on this already.

[Defarge]

I call for the Yeas and Nays

Yea

Only the President of the Senate or the President Pro Tempore can call a vote on something......As we haven't got a President Pro Tempore yet we must wait for the Vice President to call a vote or for a PPT to be elected.

Senator, the need of a Constitutional Convention is overwhelming.  Rather than be mired in procedure which is ignored half the time anyways, action must be taken now, lest the convention not conclude prior to the elections

[Gabu]

Where is Keystone Phil, anyway?

[WMS]

I don't think we really need to debate this; let's just bring it to a vote so we can vote "yea" on this already.

Can we vote yet?

[Gabu]

I don't think we really need to debate this; let's just bring it to a vote so we can vote "yea" on this already.

Can we vote yet?

Formally, we need the VP to bring it to a vote, but I have no idea where he is, and we have no PPT to do it in his stead.

If he doesn't show within a day or two, I would say to go with what Defarge said.

[WMS]

I don't think we really need to debate this; let's just bring it to a vote so we can vote "yea" on this already.

Can we vote yet?

Formally, we need the VP to bring it to a vote, but I have no idea where he is, and we have no PPT to do it in his stead.

If he doesn't show within a day or two, I would say to go with what Defarge said.

Whoops, wasn't clear enough. What I meant was, are we actually Senators yet so that we have the standing to vote on this?

I'm voting for it in any event, I just don't want to jump the gun.

[Gabu]

I don't think we really need to debate this; let's just bring it to a vote so we can vote "yea" on this already.

Can we vote yet?

Formally, we need the VP to bring it to a vote, but I have no idea where he is, and we have no PPT to do it in his stead.

If he doesn't show within a day or two, I would say to go with what Defarge said.

Whoops, wasn't clear enough. What I meant was, are we actually Senators yet so that we have the standing to vote on this?

I'm voting for it in any event, I just don't want to jump the gun.

Oh.  Right, yeah, I think that, to appease certain people ( ), the senators-elect from last midterm election should probably wait until the 7th before actually voting.

[WMS]

I don't think we really need to debate this; let's just bring it to a vote so we can vote "yea" on this already.

Can we vote yet?

Formally, we need the VP to bring it to a vote, but I have no idea where he is, and we have no PPT to do it in his stead.

If he doesn't show within a day or two, I would say to go with what Defarge said.

Whoops, wasn't clear enough. What I meant was, are we actually Senators yet so that we have the standing to vote on this?

I'm voting for it in any event, I just don't want to jump the gun.

Oh.  Right, yeah, I think that, to appease certain people ( ), the senators-elect from last midterm election should probably wait until the 7th before actually voting.

That'll work fine for me.

[JohnFKennedy]

I will put this to a vote on the seventh as has been requested to keep those outgoing Senators happy .

[True Federalist]

Since you're going for proportional, here are the priority values for each Region with the current registered population.

(1) NE 49 voters
(2) ME 23 voters
(3) P  22 voters
(4) SE 22 voters
(5) MW 15 voters
----
(6) NE delegate #2 PV 34.65
(7) NE delegate #3 PV 20.00
( ME delegate #2 PV 16.26
(9) P  delegate #2 PV 15.56
(10) SE delegate #2 PV 15.56
(11) NE delegate #4 PV 14.14
(12) NE delegate #5 PV 10.96
(13) MW delegate #2 PV 10.61
(14) ME delegate #3 PV 9.39
(15) P delegate #3 PV 8.98
(16) SE delegate #3 PV 8.98
(17) NE delegate #6 PV 8.95
(18) NE delegate #7 PV 7.56

6 delgates, 11 delegates, and 17 delegates make good breakpoints.

[Defarge]

For something this important, you can be temporary senators

[minionofmidas - supplemental forum account]

Since you're going for proportional, here are the priority values for each Region with the current registered population.

(1) NE 49 voters
(2) ME 23 voters
(3) P  22 voters
(4) SE 22 voters
(5) MW 15 voters
----
(6) NE delegate #2 PV 34.65
(7) NE delegate #3 PV 20.00
( ME delegate #2 PV 16.26
(9) P  delegate #2 PV 15.56
(10) SE delegate #2 PV 15.56
(11) NE delegate #4 PV 14.14
(12) NE delegate #5 PV 10.96
(13) MW delegate #2 PV 10.61
(14) ME delegate #3 PV 9.39
(15) P delegate #3 PV 8.98
(16) SE delegate #3 PV 8.98
(17) NE delegate #6 PV 8.95
(18) NE delegate #7 PV 7.56

6 delgates, 11 delegates, and 17 delegates make good breakpoints.

Which system did you use there? The one used for US House seats? 

[True Federalist]

Yes.

[Colin]

Since you're going for proportional, here are the priority values for each Region with the current registered population.

(1) NE 49 voters
(2) ME 23 voters
(3) P  22 voters
(4) SE 22 voters
(5) MW 15 voters
----
(6) NE delegate #2 PV 34.65
(7) NE delegate #3 PV 20.00
( ME delegate #2 PV 16.26
(9) P  delegate #2 PV 15.56
(10) SE delegate #2 PV 15.56
(11) NE delegate #4 PV 14.14
(12) NE delegate #5 PV 10.96
(13) MW delegate #2 PV 10.61
(14) ME delegate #3 PV 9.39
(15) P delegate #3 PV 8.98
(16) SE delegate #3 PV 8.98
(17) NE delegate #6 PV 8.95
(18) NE delegate #7 PV 7.56

6 delgates, 11 delegates, and 17 delegates make good breakpoints.

I must be a complete idiot but can you explain this to me Ernest.

[True Federalist]

This system is the same as that used to apportion the US House, which is called the method of equal proportions.

Step 1: Give each State a seat (Region a delegate).

Step 2: Determine for each State its priority value.
The priority value is equal to the population of the State divided by the square root of n*(n+1) where n is the number of seats it current has.  At the start this will be dividing all populations by the square root of 2 (2=1*2)  to get the priority values, then by the square root of 6 (6=2*3), square root of 12 (12=3*4) etc. as States add seats.

Step 3: Give the State with the largest priority value a seat and recalculate its priority value based on the fact that it has an extra seat.

Step 4: Until you have the number of seats you want,  repeat Step 3.

(Or alternatively, you could decide a priori that the cutoff will be at a certain priority value, if you don't want a fixed size for the group.

[Defarge]

Mr. President Pro-Tempore, if you'd be so kind to bring this to a vote...