Senate Bill: Fix the Regions Amendment (Rejected)

[President Tyrion]

I'm not comfortable with only two regional executives being included in the process, considering two of those positions will cease to exist.

[Maxwell]

Altering the quantity of regions, I think, is something that is too big for just a majority of the Senate. I'd be more apt to go for 3/5ths, meaning at least 6 Senators have to vote with the idea of regional reform.

[tmthforu94]

I could potentially support including a couple cabinet members, but I firmly believe that each region should have an equal say in this process.

[Gass3268]

I could potentially support including a couple cabinet members, but I firmly believe that each region should have an equal say in this process.

Okay, I get that, but I'd like to see the Federal government have close to an equal about the new boundaries. Also I think that what ever the final map the commission comes up with should be final.     

[TJ in Oregon]

I have a problem with granting the senate the ability to change the regions' boundaries without at very least the standard amendment procedure vote on it. I'd prefer, of course, to require the consent of the regions being changed.

[bore]

What does "allow for public input" mean?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The plan should require the consent of the regions being changed, like in Tmth's proposal.

Also, are any of these being offered? I threw Tmth's into the tracker rather hurriedly and without double checking the other day, so I might have made a mistake in doing so.

[President Tyrion]

I'm increasingly pessimistic about the odds of any reform package succeeding, particularly given our broken amendment process. As if the usual reluctance to embrace change were not enough of an obstacle, virtually nothing passes in the Pacific, which has effectively cut itself off from participating.

On that note, the Ratification Amendment has essentially failed the Pacific, as the swing-vote FBF is AWOL, and would likely vote against it, considering his fellow NM-AMers have already voted to reject it.

[sentinel]

" and two regional executives chosen by the regional executives. "

I can't see the Council of Nyman supporting that. All Governors would have to be involved.

[tmthforu94]

The plan should require the consent of the regions being changed, like in Tmth's proposal.

Also, are any of these being offered? I threw Tmth's into the tracker rather hurriedly and without double checking the other day, so I might have made a mistake in doing so.

I wasn't officially offering it as an amendment, just trying to get feedback.

I would also like to state the importance in making sure regions have to give approval for this to take effect, whether my wording or another. While the constitutional amendment to make this an option could potentially pass, signifying regional acceptance for the plan, I don't want the Senate to have the power to change the regions again in a couple years with no consent from the regions.

[tmthforu94]

Okay, here is an official amendment :

[quote]Article IV, Section 2 of the Third Constitution is amended to read as follows:

[quote]Section 2: Regional Boundaries
1. The existing Regions of Atlasia are adopted unaltered by this Constitution.
2. The consent of the Senate is required for any change in Region boundaries.
3. The consent of the Regions being changed is required.
4. A State by plebiscite shall be able to veto its transfer from one Region to another.
5. The Senate may by law admit new States to the Republic of Atlasia. The Senate may apportion this State to a Region via proper legislation.
6. The Senate, by a majority vote, along with two-thirds of the regions may vote to alter the quantity of Regions. The boundaries of the Regions shall be set by the regional executives of all regions, as well as the Vice President. The boundaries must be approved by the Senate. The boundaries shall go into effect in concurrence with the following Class A Senate Elections.
7. Should the committee to set boundaries not have an approved map within two months of it's beginning, the boundaries shall be set by the Registrar General.

[sentinel]

Can we talk a little about how this will work?

Section 2: Regional Boundaries

1. The existing Regions of Atlasia are adopted unaltered by this Constitution.
-Ok, pretty straight forward.

2. The consent of the Senate is required for any change in Region boundaries.
-Ok, also straight forward, I'm not too familiar with the procedures of the Senate, but I think the vote threshold should be a supermajority. Not too interesting of a section either way in the end.

3. The consent of the Regions being changed is required.
-So, you're telling me that if the goal was to downsize from 5 to 4 regions (for example), and Region "X" just wants to hold out, then it pretty much stops anything from happening --especially if Region "X" is the one being eliminated.

4. A State by plebiscite shall be able to veto its transfer from one Region to another.
-This is weird. For instance if the Mideast and Northeast were to merge...Pennsylvania could veto it and just be this weird solitary isolated region in the middle of northeast?

5. The Senate may by law admit new States to the Republic of Atlasia. The Senate may apportion this State to a Region via proper legislation.
-Not interesting really, straight forward.

6. The Senate, by a majority vote, along with two-thirds of the regions may vote to alter the quantity of Regions. The boundaries of the Regions shall be set by the regional executives of all regions, as well as the Vice President. The boundaries must be approved by the Senate. The boundaries shall go into effect in concurrence with the following Class A Senate Elections.
-Ah see here is where it gets messy! This conflicts with Section 3 of this amendment. Section 3 of this amendment states that the consent of the regions being changed is required, therefore, doesn't the Senate need to invoke Section 3 and get the consent from the regions --but they can't give consent on a plan that doesn't exist because they'd have to make the plan after the Senate invoked Section 6...oh the messiness.

7. Should the committee to set boundaries not have an approved map within two months of it's beginning, the boundaries shall be set by the Registrar General.


And then when regions merge or reshuffle what happens to the laws and elected officials? Does one region annex the other? Do they start from scratch? Is there a process for this?

EDIT: I would vote against this amendment in the ballot box. It feels like its designed to not work...

EDIT 2: I'm in favor of the idea of the amendment, just work out the kinks first.

[President Tyrion]

Yes, I think the plebiscite thing is especially unnecessary. I could easily just move to Utah and vote to be a part of the Northeast. Who's going to stop me, really?

And, before we bring up Kansas and Nebraska, moving in Atlasia is much easier than moving in real life.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: Vote once 24 hours expires (this afternoon)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sirnick,

Last I checked, the going discussion was based off Nix's three region plan. In that setup, theoretically all region's were being repealed and replaced to steal a phrase. In that approach, all regions are being treated the same, the only reason for a region to be singled out would be if the process to redraw the regions was corrupted and therefore unanimous consent of the regions makes perfect sense to prevent such an abuse from occuring.

As for the four region plan, I would say that the purpose of such a requirement is to do just that, protect the Regions from an onerous or bad plan. I would figure that if the plan was of compelling merit, an attempt would be made to make the case for such in said region, rather then to just set a lower bar to avoid not only the potential for defeat, but the need to make the argument. That is at once risk (of defeat) minimization and also at the same time, activity minimization, which is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do overall. If people want to minimize the extent to which they are playing the game in the reform process itself, then I see little reason to think such would be any different once said reform is passed.

[sentinel]

Sirnick,

Last I checked, the going discussion was based off Nix's three region plan. In that setup, theoretically all region's were being repealed and replaced to steal a phrase. In that approach, all regions are being treated the same, the only reason for a region to be singled out would be if the process to redraw the regions was corrupted and therefore unanimous consent of the regions makes perfect sense to prevent such an abuse from occuring.

As for the four region plan, I would say that the purpose of such a requirement is to do just that, protect the Regions from an onerous or bad plan. I would figure that if the plan was of compelling merit, an attempt would be made to make the case for such in said region, rather then to just set a lower bar to avoid not only the potential for defeat, but the need to make the argument. That is at once risk (of defeat) minimization and also at the same time, activity minimization, which is the exact opposite of what we should be trying to do overall. If people want to minimize the extent to which they are playing the game in the reform process itself, then I see little reason to think such would be any different once said reform is passed.

Where'd you get repeal and replace from? I haven't heard that before

I didn't realize we were going off the three region plan, but if the amendment is going to repeal and replace all of them, do you think it needs to say it?

Anyway, my point in replying wasn't to talk about the four region plan (which is what you replied to for some reason), it was to point out the conflicts in the bill which you have done nothing to remedy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was defending the motivations behind unanimous consent requirements since you pretty much disregarded such a provision as if it was nothing more then a scheme to ensure failure, since the I had chimed in in support of such a provision as being preferable. In fact it was the only provision that I had commented on and thus I answered responded to the one point I felt most able to provide a response, whilst such was not the case for the others you had raised. On that specific point you referenced a four region model singularly as an example, hence why my response was crafted as it was, Sirnick.

As for what the amendment states, I believe it was limited to avoided a set of problems that would kill a larger one, though in so doing has opened up some other weaknesses, like the fact that one setup may work better with three then four and vice versa.

[sentinel]

Is there a reason you and me are the only ones replying to this?

[tmthforu94]

Once this amendment is voted on, I would be happy to offer another amendment addressing the concerns you had about Sections 3 and 5. Unfortunately, I don't think too many Senators are interested in discussing this important issue because they have doubts on it actually being implemented.

[Maxwell]

Well, I think I can support this amendment, even though I would prefer that a full 3/5ths of Senators endorsed an alter to the regions, since it should be a serious thing.

[Adam Griffin]

Sirnick,

Last I checked, the going discussion was based off Nix's three region plan. In that setup, theoretically all region's were being repealed and replaced to steal a phrase. In that approach, all regions are being treated the same, the only reason for a region to be singled out would be if the process to redraw the regions was corrupted and therefore unanimous consent of the regions makes perfect sense to prevent such an abuse from occuring.

Except that it is guaranteed that at least one - if not two - regions will obstruct this process no matter what. To require unanimous consent for any regional consolidation initiative via Clause 3 will be a built-in mechanism that dooms this process, unless of course it is amended to specify that "The consent of the Regions being changed is required" applies to a supermajority of regions ratifying said change via public referendum.

Which leads into Clause 7:

"Should the committee to set boundaries not have an approved map within two months of it's beginning, the boundaries shall be set by the Registrar General."

I'm familiar with the Nix plan, but this amendment doesn't specify who will comprise the referenced committee in Clause 7. In addition to that, there is no specific reference as to what type of consensus would be needed for approval. Majority? Unanimous? Also, nix the ' in "it's".

Not a fan of Clause 4 either:

"A State by plebiscite shall be able to veto its transfer from one Region to another"

Even if regional consolidation passes, my understanding is that states with little to no population could be occupied by 1-2 individuals who want to prevent those states from being transferred. Do we really want a regional consolidation process that ends up looking like a map of the RL Medicaid expansion? This is another mechanism that would ultimately make it relatively toothless.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah I definitely don't trust the supreme court coming anywhere close to creating new boundaries. 

[tmthforu94]

I'm trying hard to get something perfect here, hence the constant revisions - it would be great if some folks would put their money where their mouth is and make some contributions to this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are your thoughts on this, Griffin, Sirnick, and Yankee?

[President Tyrion]

I would say either 60% of the voters or a majority of the voters in 2/3 of the regions, for ratification.

[opebo]

Yeah I definitely don't trust the supreme court coming anywhere close to creating new boundaries.  

What do you mean?  That we might create unsatisfactory boundaries, or that we might simply leave the old boundaries in place?