Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Classic Conservative]

Nay

[VPH]

Aye

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

aye (not a fascist)

[Clark Kent]

NAY

[Biden/Abrams Voter]

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

[Leinad]

Abstain.

It's simply not specific enough. Technically TNF's Communist Theme Park would be legal under this. It can't be so subjective to where a rogue regional government can succeed without the consent of anyone, specifically it's own people.

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.

[Biden/Abrams Voter]

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.

Yes, please do it, because we're literally at the point of casting successive votes on nearly identical amendments. Two of them were identical (this one and the past one), and the next two only differ based on 50% turnout versus 60% support.

This is getting rid-goddamn-diculous. It'll take a year at this rate to draft a new document, if we even get that far. If anything, nearly identical amendments should all be put up for a vote at once and if there is a conflict (as in, two or more variations pass), then hold a second "run-off" vote or whatever. There's no need for the procedure to be this tedious and extended. 

[rpryor03]

Nay

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This is going to go nowhere if we're going to be voting on secession for the next few weeks.

I've never heard of a country having some "process" in place for a region or state or territory to seceed. Is this some new kind of phenomanon? Or are we just wanting to turn this into a confederation? Or is this just trolling?

Secession has always been part of Atlasia, but it was used as a way to raise awareness and increase activity, not to just quietly vote to leave. Then no one would care. What happens once a region leaves? They start their own little Atlasia? I don't understand.

[Lincoln Republican]

Mr. Presiding Officer, we have approved a motion to not allow secession.

Please put an end to this circus about secession and move on to other matters.

We cannot spend the next six months debating various and sundry motions about secession.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yes, we've voted on this issue enough. Whoever is leading this motley crew needs to bar anymore voting on the issue. It's just killing the efficiency of this convention. Like a lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to bring the same case over and over and over until you win it. That's why preclusion exists.  

Now, if we want to discuss making this a confederacy (minus the racism) where regions are autonomous and receive nothing from the federal government, I'm all ears.

[Oakvale]

AYE. Free the Northeast.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Yes, we've voted on this issue enough. Whoever is leading this motley crew needs to bar anymore voting on the issue. It's just killing the efficiency of this convention. Like a lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to bring the same case over and over and over until you win it. That's why preclusion exists.  

Now, if we want to discuss making this a confederacy (minus the racism) where regions are autonomous and receive nothing from the federal government, I'm all ears.

Kind of like a national night watch state of sorts. Except in foreign policy matters of course.

[Leinad]

Mr. Presiding Officer, we have approved a motion to not allow secession.

Please put an end to this circus about secession and move on to other matters.

We cannot spend the next six months debating various and sundry motions about secession.

He's the presiding officer, not the dictator. It isn't his job to stifle debate and force us to keep a bad amendment--sure, if it's gone crazy or repetitive he should stop it, but it hasn't--we're still trying to settle it, we're not really going in circles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason you and others are on this crusade against even talking about secession is that you like the first amendment and are afraid that another one will replace it because it only passed by one freaking vote.

And that's the key--may I remind all of the "it's settled" folk: it was 10 for, 9 against, 2 abstain, with 4 not voting--can you even call that a consensus when more people didn't vote for than those that did, and only 40% voted for it at all? It's certainly anything but settled!

Yes, we've voted on this issue enough. Whoever is leading this motley crew needs to bar anymore voting on the issue. It's just killing the efficiency of this convention. Like a lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to bring the same case over and over and over until you win it. That's why preclusion exists.

It's not the same case. My amendment, for example, is vastly different from Oakvale's (which, I'll totally agree, is silly--he just struck out "not" and called it an amendment) in that it details a simple mechanism, so it's the people with a say, not the government (either regional or federal). That's my goal in this secession stuff--self-government.

I've never heard of a country having some "process" in place for a region or state or territory to seceed.

Of course not, because (danger: cynicism ahead) governments naturally want unchallengeable authority over their people. I, however, am against that paradigm.

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.

Yes, please do it, because we're literally at the point of casting successive votes on nearly identical amendments. Two of them were identical (this one and the past one), and the next two only differ based on 50% turnout versus 60% support.

This is getting rid-goddamn-diculous. It'll take a year at this rate to draft a new document, if we even get that far. If anything, nearly identical amendments should all be put up for a vote at once and if there is a conflict (as in, two or more variations pass), then hold a second "run-off" vote or whatever. There's no need for the procedure to be this tedious and extended. 

But it makes no difference! I, for one, am not going to be any more likely to not introduce an amendment due to some silly tactic of voting "nay" in protest than I would if you simply said "hey, this is ridiculous" and still voted based on what you thought. I mean, that would be stupid if a good amendment is voted down narrowly because someone is doing this crap!

Regarding the voting multiple amendments at the same time, yeah, I like that. Good idea!

[Senator Cris]

NAY: 9
AYE: 7
ABSTAIN: 2

The amendment has failed to pass.

Now, it's time for Leinad's amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates have 24 hours to object.

[Lincoln Republican]

Now, it's time for Leinad's amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Delegates have 24 hours to object.

I object to this amendment.  I have no objection to anyone having the right to discuss secession. Obviously, anyone has the right to discuss anything they want.

But now he is introducing states into the equation.  States discussing seceding from the nation?  This is a bit much.

This amendment is too vague, as it talks about a referendum for independence, but it does not clarify if this is a referendum in a region or in a state.  Are we to assume he is talking about a referendum in a region?  I believe this is what he is referring to.  But in the previous sentence, he talks about states as well, not just regions.

Besides, a three-fifths majority may not be enough to start dismantling the country over.      

[Senator Cris]

A 48-hours vote on this amendment is now open. Please vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

Aye

Regardless of whether or not you like the idea of secession, a procedure should be in place if the vast majority of a region ever feels that their rights are being trampled on and secession is the only way to create progress.

[Classic Conservative]

Nay

[Grand Inquisitor Lumine]

Nay.

[rpryor03]

Nay.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Nay, though this is the best amendment so far. If this ends up being adopted, I would recommend the following changes:

1. Replace "discuss secession" with "secede". Obviously, citizens have the right to discuss secession - the question is whether they have the right to actually separate.
2. Remove "states and groups" from the list of bodies that may legally secede. Since most states have 1-2 inhabitants at most, allowing states to secede would inevitably result in trolling (does anyone really think that me and JCL need our own country?). "Groups" is horribly vague and should be struck from the text regardless of whether secession is legal or not.
3. Raise the threshold to two-thirds (at minimum).

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

aye (not a fascist)

[Biden/Abrams Voter]

Nay

[Lincoln Republican]

Nay