SENATE BILL: The Bicameral Birthing Amendment of 2014 (sent to the Regions?)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. Article 1, Section 4 of the Third Constitution of Atlasia is amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: The Addition of the House

1. Article 1, Section 8 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “The House” and shall read:
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 4: House Districts and Elections

1. Article 1, Section 9 of the Third Constitution shall be entitled “Elections to the House” and shall read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Adam Griffin

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

SPEAK ADAM!!!


 

[Adam Griffin]

I think my intention behind this is fairly evident: I want to revive the plans that our current President had for a bicameral legislature ("the Duke Plan"), in part because I believe this may be the most realistic and healthy type of major reform we can achieve currently.

While there wasn't an exact piece of legislation ever introduced, I was able to glean from a rough draft version elements that are crucial to such an objective.

This is obviously a huge undertaking as a piece of legislation and would require tons of changes, but it probably has a better shot than a complete overhaul of the Constitution, total regional elimination, statute reboots or any other item of the sort.

By actually creating something new, rather than just eliminating old and flawed elements of the game, we can legitimately stir up interest in the game once again. A bicameral legislature would be a hugely exciting concept that would no doubt transform the dynamic of the federal legislative process.

Since one of the original tenants of the proposed Duke Plan was to reduce the number of regions to three (as a way to balance out adding new offices, since the game unarguably already has too many offices), I have designed the initial framework to be something that would go into effect upon ratification of the Fix the Regions Amendment by two of the three regions that have yet to ratify it (NE, IDS & ME) and any subsequent necessary measures pertaining to consolidation. In essence, it could be adopted and ratified now, where it would lie in wait until the prerequisites from other efforts are fulfilled.

[bore]

The obvious problem that strikes me here is this can only work with fewer regions, otherwise we will simply have too many offices. Yet this would go into effect on passage of the fix the regions, which doesn't actually change the number of regions, only provides a method of doing so. So we would have a bicameral senate and 5 regions straight away.

[Adam Griffin]

The obvious problem that strikes me here is this can only work with fewer regions, otherwise we will simply have too many offices. Yet this would go into effect on passage of the fix the regions, which doesn't actually change the number of regions, only provides a method of doing so. So we would have a bicameral senate and 5 regions straight away.

As best I can tell, the way it was introduced covers that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps the way it is currently worded makes it sound as if once it and the Fix the Regions Amendment are ratified, that this amendment goes into effect and consent then begins. Ideally, I was trying to draft it as this goes into effect after it and the FTR Amendment are ratified AND after the consent process has been completed.   

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What promise we once had, before my plan was shot in the head like JFK.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Duke Plan preserved the balance in the legislative branch by giving Regions the entirety of the Senate whilst the House was Proportional. This does not do that at present.

[Adam Griffin]

The Duke Plan preserved the balance in the legislative branch by giving Regions the entirety of the Senate whilst the House was Proportional. This does not do that at present.

Yes Yankee, I know that this doesn't perfectly fit your ideological purity test for some perceived need of balance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Duke Plan preserved the balance in the legislative branch by giving Regions the entirety of the Senate whilst the House was Proportional. This does not do that at present.

Yes Yankee, I know that this doesn't perfectly fit your ideological purity test for some perceived need of balance.

Now Adam, has that attitude, or should I say approach, brought you any degree of success so far in these matters?

I would vote for an amendment like this that was based on the Duke plan's legislative structure.

[Lumine]

Well, I think at least seeing an amendment which still involves a House and Senate and with a better chance of passing is worth a look. That said, I would be happy to support and vote in favor of Griffin's plan, but getting "Fix the Regions" passed will probably take a good amount of time (I think we could get it passed on the Northeast as well this time, but I can't be sure of that).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you have the gov't structure pre-established the chances probably improve with regards to passing the Fix the Region's amendment.

Also, if that structure preserves the balance the Duke plan included, chances improve of it passing in a four region as well, probably the IDS more so then the ME.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The way I see it is, there are going to be people that oppose any changes to the game at all, and anything I do with this plan will be met with opposition because it imposes on the rights of regions. I don't ever see it passing the ME and likely the IDS regardless of what we do here.

I'd love to see a bicameral system put in place, and I think it is a shot in the arm that Atlasia needs, especially since we will have elections so often to the House.

My original plan attempted to strike a balance between regions and at-large, but it was voted down by those who didn't want any change anyway, so I'm going to be more flexible this time around. I honestly don't see the IDS or ME voting for it either way, but I'd be happy if they did. I'm just managing expectations here.

For reference, my memorandum I published during my October 2013 campaign is below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16CprQX313EgE37ashRbVCTWxz8TayYtbvmXjeV13OD8/edit

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The consolidation process itself failed, but that was partially because there were disagreements over how it was structured as well as the issue itself and even some noted reformists voted against it in various regions. Remember, it only got ~40% total nationwide.

If you have the gov't structure pre-established, and include the Duke plans balance, you'll stand a much better chance of getting pro-Regionalists to support it in the ME and IDS, as well as those who might been hessitant to vote for starting a process that left a question mark on some pretty important issues to be decided latter.

I said then I supported the Duke Plan's gov't structure for a post consolidation environment and that still stands.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Every time I see the title of this thread I think of Jessica Raine.

How did you come up with 11 House members?

[Adam Griffin]

The Duke Plan preserved the balance in the legislative branch by giving Regions the entirety of the Senate whilst the House was Proportional. This does not do that at present.

Yes Yankee, I know that this doesn't perfectly fit your ideological purity test for some perceived need of balance.

Now Adam, has that attitude, or should I say approach, brought you any degree of success so far in these matters?

I would vote for an amendment like this that was based on the Duke plan's legislative structure.

I'm failing to really see here how this is drastically different than the outline of the original plan, except for that balance argument that a large majority of the game doesn't care for. Maybe I'd agree with you if the regions in this game weren't a faltering institution that merited proposals like this in the first place. Sure, let's give them more election booths to manage and more candidates to find exclusively within their own borders. We don't even know if consolidation itself will solve the problems it aims to, so I'd prefer not stacking the deck against it even more by filling the void of eliminated offices with more offices.

The only real difference is the size of the lower chamber and the name of it; I don't see any reason to create a House that is essentially the same size as the Senate. The bill itself would ultimately be so large that I didn't bother adding elements such as which chambers can introduce which types of bills and the like, so there's no disagreement there.  After all, why waste any more time on the initial version when I knew there'd be all of this pushback no matter what?

And it's not like I haven't compromised in this bill or on other areas of this broader agenda, and what has that attitude/approach got me? Face it: you're the easiest path to the 7th vote on matters like this and your obstruction on the matter makes you individually more responsible for continuing to derail any proposal like this than anyone else in the game. FTRA failed by the margin that it did because it was winter break and turnout for that vote was among some of the lowest that I've seen in the game, but we've already been over that. We all know how low turnout phenomena work in this game and in real-life.

You can choose to compromise in a process like this like everyone else has, or you can choose to continue sinking the leader of your party's ideas and make him the only modern President not to achieve any major piece of reform. My tone has absolutely nothing to do with your decisions.

Sweet Dukey: you would've done better to cum with the Labor. I remember you were afraid of them sinking your plans if you angered them. I can't really tell a difference at this point: are they mad at you right now?

[Adam Griffin]

Every time I see the title of this thread I think of Jessica Raine.

How did you come up with 11 House members?

I roughly estimated how many offices we could expect to lose in the process of consolidating to three regions (which was 11; coincidence). I then added to that the 4 Senate seats (2 from each to please Mr. Balance). All along, I figured that the size of the House should be roughly equivalent to two-thirds of the seats removed in the process, so that's basically how I came up with it. It needed to be an odd number, in my opinion, so 11 worked best from that perspective.

I also wanted there to be more of a variance between the sizes of the two bodies than in the original plan linked above. 8 versus 6 essentially gives you two chambers where a person's vote is of similar value. Because of this, I was willing to dial back the net number of eliminated offices just a bit. This way, the House would be nearly twice the size of the Senate. I'd really like a 3:1 ratio, but I don't see how that's possible given the objective of minimizing offices in a game that can't keep them filled and active as-is.

[bore]

Why not reduce the senate to 5, then? That would also give more influence to the regional senators, which would help get this passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Duke Plan preserved the balance in the legislative branch by giving Regions the entirety of the Senate whilst the House was Proportional. This does not do that at present.

Yes Yankee, I know that this doesn't perfectly fit your ideological purity test for some perceived need of balance.

Now Adam, has that attitude, or should I say approach, brought you any degree of success so far in these matters?

I would vote for an amendment like this that was based on the Duke plan's legislative structure.

I'm failing to really see here how this is drastically different than the outline of the original plan, except for that balance argument that a large majority of the game doesn't care for. Maybe I'd agree with you if the regions in this game weren't a faltering institution that merited proposals like this in the first place. Sure, let's give them more election booths to manage and more candidates to find exclusively within their own borders. We don't even know if consolidation itself will solve the problems it aims to, so I'd prefer not stacking the deck against it even more by filling the void of eliminated offices with more offices.

What are you talking about? It is still a substantial reduction in the number of offices combned with a consolidation from five to three regions and a four personal smaller Senate. I don't see how proceeding with the Duke Plan's structure stacks the deck against success in this regard. Also what is this "original plan" you are speaking of? Fix the regions was originally formed under Nix to facilitate the consolidation and left the gov't structure as a big question mark, which remained a hinderance to the passing of the Fix the regions' Amendment to the end. Nix had his own plan for the post consolidation legislature design that contained only one chamber that was also balanced 6 and 6, I would point out. That would I think be best termed "the original plan", would it not? I am beginning to think you are not even familiar with the contents of the Duke plan in this regard.

The only real difference is the size of the lower chamber and the name of it; I don't see any reason to create a House that is essentially the same size as the Senate. The bill itself would ultimately be so large that I didn't bother adding elements such as which chambers can introduce which types of bills and the like, so there's no disagreement there.  After all, why waste any more time on the initial version when I knew there'd be all of this pushback no matter what?

Again what is this "initial version". Fix the Regions was a process established to facilitate the consolidation, which would then not go into effect until the post Consolidation legislative structure had been agreed to. I am not sure what you are comparing against. The Duke Plan's legislative structure was never voted on. If their was opposition to it, it was probably mainly centered on the opposition to bicameralism but it was never tested.  

FTRA failed by the margin that it did because it was winter break and turnout for that vote was among some of the lowest that I've seen in the game, but we've already been over that. We all know how low turnout phenomena work in this game and in real-life.

Really? It was all about turnout? I think your absence from the forum has hurt you in this regard. What about all the reformists who voted against it? What about the anti-regionalists who voted against it? Turnout might have flipped the Northeast but not the IDS And ME where turnout was about normal or just slightly down as I recall, so no it would not have changed the result. There were also the numerous voters mentioned above that would have further reduced the nationwide support levels regardless, which could very well have been extrapolated to those similar types who didn't vote if they had turned out, thus preserving a similar such nationwide margin.  

And it's not like I haven't compromised in this bill or on other areas of this broader agenda, and what has that attitude/approach got me?

You seem to be intent on picking a fight where none has to exist and thereby ensuring nothing gets done on this. You could pass this amendment with the Duke Plan and stand a far better shot at getting this passed in the regions then with what you have now. With a settled post-consolidation gov't plan that is reasonable with regards to the region, you stand a better chance at flipping some of those nay voters that could change the result in the fourth region (presuming the NE was all about turnout).

Face it: you're the easiest path to the 7th vote on matters like this and your obstruction on the matter makes you individually more responsible for continuing to derail any proposal like this than anyone else in the game.

Continue to fail? We haven't voted on it since December and as I recall, the first time it failed in the Senate because three people you helped put there didn't bother to vote on it, including its own sponsor. Your people did far more to obstruct that Amendment in the Senate by not voting then anything I did. I actually worked constructively and tried to find a structure that I would vote for. You make it sound like I filibustered the damn thing.

You can choose to compromise in a process like this like everyone else has, or you can choose to continue sinking the leader of your party's ideas and make him the only modern President not to achieve any major piece of reform. My tone has absolutely nothing to do with your decisions.

I did compromise when I supported the government structure's of the Nix and Duke plan.

Yes your approach does matter, if you purposely refused to go with a plan that contains a provision that no one supposedly cares about as you said, for no obvious reason except your own intransigence, yes I would say it has plenty to do with it.

You are not going to imitidate me into embracing a plan I think is bad. If you want Duke to have a success then I will trust you will join me in voting for the Duke plan's gov't structure as opposed to this. How does Duke even fit into this Amendment? He didn't make this structure, you did and President's don't sign amendments. So how exactly are you not, if anything, pushing Duke aside as opposed to supporting him against my alleged opposition. You are attacking his plan, you are the one critizing his plan whilst I am promoting it, and yet it is me who is underming him? Man you live in such a world of contortion and conspiracy, Griffin.

Sweet Dukey: you would've done better to cum with the Labor. I remember you were afraid of them sinking your plans if you angered them. I can't really tell a difference at this point: are they mad at you right now?

I must have missed all the laborite support for Duke's domestic agenda or imagined all the railing against so called TPP-Federalist corporatism and his favoring the filty rich. You have opposed far more of Duke's agenda then I have.

Duke's party membership would not have changed the outcome back in December, nor would it have made it more likely to get through any time since then. It would have stiffled his domestic agenda though out of the necessity of party unity and caused him to lose even more of his agenda.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I echo my sentiments above. At this current juncture, I would like to see us accomplish something in the realm of game reform before my term ends.

Friends, I am in the midst of studying for the bar that I take in July and I am going my damnest to juggle that while being a real human being at the same time (and that isn't easy); I can't rehash the past, I can't worry about who hates me or who doesn't. Maybe someday someone can author an alternate history piece where I did cum on handsome boys and join Liebor. Then we could all have that discussion.

My position on consolidation and a bicameral legislature has been clear from the start: I support it; I think we need it, I think it would give this overwhelmingly stale game new life. I just wish everyone else thought like I did, sometimes at least...

 

[windjammer]

Eeeeeh, are you sure Bicameralism will work?

Bicameralism is terrible, isn't it?

[Adam Griffin]

Dear sweet God, please stop breaking down replies into splintered, meaningless quotes. I'm putting your replies back together, as they should be.

What are you talking about? It is still a substantial reduction in the number of offices combned with a consolidation from five to three regions and a four personal smaller Senate. I don't see how proceeding with the Duke Plan's structure stacks the deck against success in this regard. Also what is this "original plan" you are speaking of? Fix the regions was originally formed under Nix to facilitate the consolidation and left the gov't structure as a big question mark, which remained a hinderance to the passing of the Fix the regions' Amendment to the end. Nix had his own plan for the post consolidation legislature design that contained only one chamber that was also balanced 6 and 6, I would point out. That would I think be best termed "the original plan", would it not? I am beginning to think you are not even familiar with the contents of the Duke plan in this regard.

Again what is this "initial version". Fix the Regions was a process established to facilitate the consolidation, which would then not go into effect until the post Consolidation legislative structure had been agreed to. I am not sure what you are comparing against. The Duke Plan's legislative structure was never voted on. If their was opposition to it, it was probably mainly centered on the opposition to bicameralism but it was never tested.  

Really? It was all about turnout? I think your absence from the forum has hurt you in this regard. What about all the reformists who voted against it? What about the anti-regionalists who voted against it? Turnout might have flipped the Northeast but not the IDS And ME where turnout was about normal or just slightly down as I recall, so no it would not have changed the result. There were also the numerous voters mentioned above that would have further reduced the nationwide support levels regardless, which could very well have been extrapolated to those similar types who didn't vote if they had turned out, thus preserving a similar such nationwide margin.  

You seem to be intent on picking a fight where none has to exist and thereby ensuring nothing gets done on this. You could pass this amendment with the Duke Plan and stand a far better shot at getting this passed in the regions then with what you have now. With a settled post-consolidation gov't plan that is reasonable with regards to the region, you stand a better chance at flipping some of those nay voters that could change the result in the fourth region (presuming the NE was all about turnout).

Continue to fail? We haven't voted on it since December and as I recall, the first time it failed in the Senate because three people you helped put there didn't bother to vote on it, including its own sponsor. Your people did far more to obstruct that Amendment in the Senate by not voting then anything I did. I actually worked constructively and tried to find a structure that I would vote for. You make it sound like I filibustered the damn thing.

I did compromise when I supported the government structure's of the Nix and Duke plan.

Yes your approach does matter, if you purposely refused to go with a plan that contains a provision that no one supposedly cares about as you said, for no obvious reason except your own intransigence, yes I would say it has plenty to do with it.

You are not going to imitidate me into embracing a plan I think is bad. If you want Duke to have a success then I will trust you will join me in voting for the Duke plan's gov't structure as opposed to this. How does Duke even fit into this Amendment? He didn't make this structure, you did and President's don't sign amendments. So how exactly are you not, if anything, pushing Duke aside as opposed to supporting him against my alleged opposition. You are attacking his plan, you are the one critizing his plan whilst I am promoting it, and yet it is me who is underming him? Man you live in such a world of contortion and conspiracy, Griffin.

I must have missed all the laborite support for Duke's domestic agenda or imagined all the railing against so called TPP-Federalist corporatism and his favoring the filty rich. You have opposed far more of Duke's agenda then I have.

Duke's party membership would not have changed the outcome back in December, nor would it have made it more likely to get through any time since then. It would have stiffled his domestic agenda though out of the necessity of party unity and caused him to lose even more of his agenda.

Giving jurisdiction to these elected offices to regions is a bad idea - that's what I mean by stacking the deck. For some need of "balance", we're going to put the (presumably) management of election booths and the jurisdiction of the Senators themselves in the hands of the same institutions that currently aren't performing how they need to in those areas. It's easy to find at-large Senators; I worry about not finding two interesting souls to run for Senate from a region (not now, but it's very possible that that could have happened without an incumbent several months ago in one region or another).

The initial version I referred to was this bill that I introduced; I didn't want to put any more work into it knowing these kind of debates would pop up. I'm comparing against the framework Google Doc for the plan itself; the only real difference other than federalism is the number of people in the lower chamber.

And yes, failure of FTRA was predominantly about turnout. There were people who voted against it who I didn't expect to - both because it didn't go far enough and because they bailed on the idea toward the end - but it was much more an issue of people not turning out to vote. How do I know? Because I really didn't push people to come out and vote. I thought there was enough excitement about it, honestly, but the combination of the holidays and my lack of engagement proved me wrong. Yes, it would have never passed in 4 regions on the first go and I didn't expect for it to - 3 would have been different, though. Had it, the IDS would probably still be on fire right now. But thanks to the 17th Amendment, the real success is achieved when it leaves the Senate, no? We have an infinite amount of time to change the course of destiny.

And yep, there has been no fight up until this point, and that's the whole point. You, Duke, Cinci or someone else aligned with the latest rendition of this rather old plan (we're now calling it "The Duke Plan") hasn't been willing it seems to introduce a framework to actually get this process rolling. I have, so yeah...arguing is my trademark of sorts. You're going to need to learn how to effectively argue to deal with the components of this game who oppose this plan, so you can practice on me, I suppose. I highly doubt IDS voters are magically going to come along with this plan, especially after the statements made about how it was abandoned due to lack of support. I tell you what: if you can put together a petition of the majority of the residents of that region who support this, I'll step aside completely on the matter. Otherwise, I'm not prepared to negotiate with people who don't negotiate.

My approach again is not important: there's a way around this, of course. You most likely have 5 Senators who are ready to support the majority of what Duke initially asked for - maybe 6 -  but that one provision is going to keep you firmly rooted against it, I suppose. A provision that is a tenet of 30% of the Senate. At this point, the balance of resistance isn't what it was last year. And at the end of the day, all of these plans have in essence been evolutions of the original one I helped hatch in IRC in late April/early May 2013 (which is why I'm so offended when it's suggested that I have not compromised immensely).

You think the plan is "bad" because we're not giving the least reliable aspect of the game as much say as you'd like. The plan itself is the same that Duke outlined, with the exception of that. You won't compromise, and frankly, you haven't had to compromise on much on this series of debates, seeing as how you found the broader arguments of consolidation to be convincing in and of themselves. We've walked from regional elimination to three regions drawn independently to three regions drawn by Governors with a variety of other provisions mixed in. I remember us having a similar conversation in the FTRA thread way back when, where I backed off about something to do with balance. I've compromised plenty. So I suppose after pushing the rock up against the wall, you can blame the rock for not moving any more.

And anything we've sunk of Duke's on policy pertains to small-ball economic and social policy that doesn't actually leave a lasting mark on the game (which everyone knows). The President's tenure is measured by his ability to change the structure of the game, and on that front, you guys have been by far the obstructionists.

[Adam Griffin]

But yeah, go ahead and introduce your amendment and we'll go from there. The two biggest blowhards of the Senate rambling on and going back and forth is scaring off the rest of the Senators from the discussion.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

We're all just enthralled by your mighty oratory, Sen. Griffin.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Dear sweet God, please stop breaking down replies into splintered, meaningless quotes. I'm putting your replies back together, as they should be.

But thats where the fun is!!! If I didn't respond to each paragraph, a lot of stuff would not get covered that needs to be responded to.

Giving jurisdiction to these elected offices to regions is a bad idea - that's what I mean by stacking the deck. For some need of "balance", we're going to put the (presumably) management of election booths and the jurisdiction of the Senators themselves in the hands of the same institutions that currently aren't performing how they need to in those areas. It's easy to find at-large Senators; I worry about not finding two interesting souls to run for Senate from a region (not now, but it's very possible that that could have happened without an incumbent several months ago in one region or another).

I never called for that here. What are you talking about that was not part of the Duke plan, the Regional Senate seats would still be administered like they are now? I merely suggested the idea in the Referenda theme. Different Amendemnt man, different amendment. But now that you mention it.

The initial version I referred to was this bill that I introduced; I didn't want to put any more work into it knowing these kind of debates would pop up. I'm comparing against the framework Google Doc for the plan itself; the only real difference other than federalism is the number of people in the lower chamber.

 


The Duke plan had six regional Senate seats split into two classes, that is the source of my complaint. I think we have been talking on different frequencies here man.

And yes, failure of FTRA was predominantly about turnout. There were people who voted against it who I didn't expect to - both because it didn't go far enough and because they bailed on the idea toward the end - but it was much more an issue of people not turning out to vote. How do I know? Because I really didn't push people to come out and vote. I thought there was enough excitement about it, honestly, but the combination of the holidays and my lack of engagement proved me wrong. Yes, it would have never passed in 4 regions on the first go and I didn't expect for it to - 3 would have been different, though. Had it, the IDS would probably still be on fire right now. But thanks to the 17th Amendment, the real success is achieved when it leaves the Senate, no? We have an infinite amount of time to change the course of destiny.

I thought you hated the 17th Amendment.

And yep, there has been no fight up until this point, and that's the whole point. You, Duke, Cinci or someone else aligned with the latest rendition of this rather old plan (we're now calling it "The Duke Plan") hasn't been willing it seems to introduce a framework to actually get this process rolling. I have, so yeah...arguing is my trademark of sorts. You're going to need to learn how to effectively argue to deal with the components of this game who oppose this plan, so you can practice on me, I suppose. I highly doubt IDS voters are magically going to come along with this plan, especially after the statements made about how it was abandoned due to lack of support. I tell you what: if you can put together a petition of the majority of the residents of that region who support this, I'll step aside completely on the matter. Otherwise, I'm not prepared to negotiate with people who don't negotiate.

Duke wanted to let it lie and focus on other matters, for one thing. Second of all I was a supporter of a four region plan last year but the best gov't structures don't work so well with that (Nix and Duke plans). I was always rather dubious about the three region consolidation plan in general but was willing to assist in the formation of a gov't plan if people were to determined to go in that direction and like you said previously I figured it was the case as well, the last thing I wanted was a bad idea to be even worse. That said I did sour on consolidation in general and figured there was a better approach to turning the game around.

My approach again is not important: there's a way around this, of course. You most likely have 5 Senators who are ready to support the majority of what Duke initially asked for - maybe 6 -  but that one provision is going to keep you firmly rooted against it, I suppose. A provision that is a tenet of 30% of the Senate. At this point, the balance of resistance isn't what it was last year. And at the end of the day, all of these plans have in essence been evolutions of the original one I helped hatch in IRC in late April/early May 2013 (which is why I'm so offended when it's suggested that I have not compromised immensely).

I never suggested you didn't compromise. The difference between that is merely academic and one made that involves the key players is typically one of them almost always fails and the other is more likley to get passed.

The first consolidation plan I had contact with was I think back in 2012 by Antonio and I got it to the floor for him. So I was doubly unsure as to what you were refering to by "original".

I wouldn't know, my new computer quit, and even if it hadn't, I probably would not have been in the IRC after May 1st, 2013 (I have only been in since twice total as I find it a dreadful place full weird people. ). If I was half the obstructionist dick you think I am, I tell you where you can shove this merely for making the IRC connection that just happens to coincide with when Rimjob was beginning to be hatched.

Would you mind showing me your "original plan"?

You think the plan is "bad" because we're not giving the least reliable aspect of the game as much say as you'd like. The plan itself is the same that Duke outlined, with the exception of that. You won't compromise, and frankly, you haven't had to compromise on much on this series of debates, seeing as how you found the broader arguments of consolidation to be convincing in and of themselves. We've walked from regional elimination to three regions drawn independently to three regions drawn by Governors with a variety of other provisions mixed in. I remember us having a similar conversation in the FTRA thread way back when, where I backed off about something to do with balance. I've compromised plenty. So I suppose after pushing the rock up against the wall, you can blame the rock for not moving any more.

Convincing? I have become a skeptic more and more since last fall. I really don't think consolidation is going to change much except create a temporary stir that will fade similar to that of dissolution. Duke had a Senate that was all Regional, and a House that was all proportional. I will vote that out of the Senate, and let the people decide on the matter. An amendment that preserves the balance between regional and proportional interests will be less likely to incure the wrath of regionalist voters then one that dillutes it to 1/4 of the legislature process. If it passes the regions, the Fix the Regions Amendment will then be far better positioned, having both a gov't structure pre-established and a legislative process at the end that doesn't change the legislatures balance of interests. I consider that to be rather reasonable, or shall we say, agreeable degree of cooperation considering my position.

And anything we've sunk of Duke's on policy pertains to small-ball economic and social policy that doesn't actually leave a lasting mark on the game (which everyone knows). The President's tenure is measured by his ability to change the structure of the game, and on that front, you guys have been by far the obstructionists.

And that is precisely why I think Consolidation will fail. At some point that policy has to matter otherwise you always need another reform, again and again reform to nowhere. The policy stuff has to matter and that dubiousness about those issues ever mattering, from you and others as being unimportant, adds to my worry. So yes, your tone does once again, matter.  

If Consolidation were passed, would these "small ball" thinks becoming "Big Fing Deals" (lol Biden reference ftw!!!)?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Eeeeeh, are you sure Bicameralism will work?

Bicameralism is terrible, isn't it?

Actually, there was once a big argument over that and that could be a hinderance that cuts across spectrum like it did back in 2009.