Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Clyde1998]

Though I should note I don't see any indication of devolution and a potential court case even imposing northern, southern and western as names under the supremacy clause.

We need something like this:
v. The regions reserve the right to change their names in accordance with their own constitutions and shall be recognized according to their new name by the Federal Government.

So I guess I object.

Would this work?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will object to that - to enable a vote on it.

[Clyde1998]

Aye

[Clyde1998]

Nay

[Clyde1998]

I will object, regarding Section Two. I have mentioned (I can't remember if I proposed an amendment though) that Section Two should include a turnout clause - as it's possible that there is only one vote in the referendum, which would be over the (ridiculously high) 75% threshold. Also, a 3-1 vote in favour is possible in an inactive region, four votes might be around 15% of the electorate.

I know I won't get support for replacing the 75% threshold Yes vote with a turnout threshold, though.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

I'm not adverse to adding a turnout threshold; however, there are some structural problems with that proposal that need to be addressed:

1. The current wording would allow states and "other entities" to declare themselves outside of the jurisdiction of the Constitution (aka nullification) without officially seceding from Atlasia. I assume this was an unintended typo, so I won't bother to explain why its not a good idea to allow states (most of which have a population of 1-2 voters) to decide that they're not going to follow the Constitution.
2. On a more stylistic note, the wording of the proposed amendment is slightly bulky and legalistic: while that doesn't greatly effect the substance of the proposal, if possible it would be best to adopt a more compact version.

To that end, I object to Clyde's amendment and propose the following alternative:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The result is a provision that is reduced by more than 20 words and more in line with the style of the rest of the Constitution while still maintaining the essence of the original proposal.

I'm happy with that proposal.

[Clyde1998]

     I would prefer to make it a set number of people must vote in favor instead of simply voting, so that we don't create political games of people invalidating their ballots to push it under the quorum mark. I suggest as an alternative:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I object to that; I'll only agree if it replaces the 75% threshold of total voters voting in favour.

[Clyde1998]

The question really is, how tough should it be?

If we take the Northeast referendum results and flip the Yes and No vote figures:

Yes - 12 (60% of votes; 34.3% of eligible voters)
No - 8 (40% of votes)
Turnout - 20 (57.1% of eligible voters)

Personally, this would be enough for any constitutional vote to pass. It passes through my proposed turnout filter and PiT's Yes turnout filter - and has a clear majority. It doesn't, however, pass through the 75% threshold.

If 8 people vote against independence, then the Yes campaign must win three times as many (24 in this case). That would see a 91.4% turnout in this example. It's as good as impossible to pass.

Let's take some international examples: the 1992 French referendum on the Maastricht Treaty passes with 51% of the vote, the 1997 Welsh devolution referendum passed with 50.3% of the vote, the 2006 Montenegrin independence referendum passed with 55.5% of the vote (this had a 55% Yes threshold) and the 1964 Malta independence referendum passed with 54.5% of the vote.

I personally would want to lower the 75% threshold.

[Clyde1998]

I personally would want to lower the 75% threshold.

You have the right to your own opinion; however, the Convention has already debated this issue extensively and elected by a democratic vote to set the threshold at 3/4. As I recall, you and others spoke in favor of a lower threshold then and were outvoted; it is not a prudent use of our time to re-litigate this issue.

Ten delegates didn't vote on it - which means that only 44% of delegates voted in favour:

With a vote of 11 Ayes, 3 Nays, 1 Abstention, and 10 delegates not voting, Truman's amendment has been adopted.

We held the vote on secession being legal twice, following a low turnout in the first vote.

I propose:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[   ] AYE       [ X ] NAY      [   ] Abstain

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[ X ] AYE      [   ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
[quote]
Section 2 (The Union)
i. No Region shall secede from Atlasia save by a vote of 3/4 of the citizens thereof, and no such vote shall be considered valid in which the number of persons voting is less than 2/5 of the total number of eligible electors.
ii. No Region, state, or other entity shall declare itself outside the jurisdiction of this Constitution so long as it remains party to this Union.

[Clyde1998]

Option 1: Nay
Option 2: Nay

3/4 is too high a threshold and invalidating such a vote violates our democratic processes.

Sadly, we're not voting on lowering the threshold - we're only voting to add a turnout filter. I proposed an amendment to lower the threshold to 60% (from 75%) and this was said to be "out of order".

[Clyde1998]

3/4 is too high a threshold

As I said earlier to Clyde, you are free to believe that, just as I am free to believe that legalizing secession was the single worst decision made by this Convention. However, the fact of the matter is that both of these issues were settled by democratic votes: it would be neither fair nor efficient to continue to challenge their legitimacy by calling successive votes on the same issue until we get a result that you like.

The circumstances surrounding the vote on the threshold for secession were specifically designed to ensure that the only proposition being tested was the threshold itself. The idea of secession, you will remember, had already been approved by a principle vote; therefore, the delegates' votes were not determined by their support for or opposition to secession. Likewise, the only change being made by the aforementioned vote was the insertion of the 3/4 clause, so it is not possible that the delegates voted for or against based on some other provision. The only logical conclusion is that the 3/4 clause has the support of the majority, and as in any democracy, the majority rules.

It is true, as Clyde noted, that several delegates regrettably failed to vote on the matter. However, the Regulations enacted by the Senate neither impose a quorum nor permit us to establish one, and the Convention wisely elected not to establish such a quorum a few weeks ago. Doing so would allow the minority to block progress at the Convention by refusing to vote when they are outnumbered (much like what happens in the real life U.S. Senate), a prospect we cannot afford to risk. As such, any calls to re-do the vote on the 3/4 threshold because a minority of the Convention failed to vote lack any legal legitimacy. This Convention will not be held hostage by inactivity: I have done, and will continue to do, everything in my power to encourage activity and ensure that delegates do not miss key votes, but if certain individuals choose not to do the jobs they were elected to do, that's their problem. I will not allow progress to be brought to a standstill because some people can't be bothered to meet their commitments.

The bottom line here is that a vote was held, the 3/4 threshold passed, and there is no legitimate procedural reason to conduct another vote on a matter that has been settled by the democratic process. I understand that you and others are unhappy with this result - as I say, you have a right to that opinion - but not getting everything you want is part of democracy. The rules have been carefully followed here; it is time to move on.

We held a principle vote on whether succession should be legal, but we didn't hold one on the threshold to pass. I propose that we hold one of the threshold level - where the delegates post a percentage/fraction that should be the threshold level and the average of these figures is taken (and rounded to nearest 5%).

You say that "in any democracy, the majority rules", which I agree with, but then surely 50%+1 is enough on any issue. It's double standards if you think the threshold should be higher on issues that you disagree with.

[Clyde1998]

The purpose of a principle vote is to isolate a question of principle ("should secession be legal?"; "how should the Senate be elected?") from any secondary questions associated with it. When we first voted on secession, as I explained above, we did so through the traditional amendment process; those early amendments failed in part because many delegates who supported a Right to Secede were voting "Nay" over perceived flaws in the proposed amendments. It became clear that differences over how a Region should be allowed to leave the Union was obscuring the question of whether they should be allowed to separate; therefore, Presiding Officer Cris called a principle vote isolating the second question from the first. This vote resulted in a majority in favor of secession.

By contrast, the vote on the 3/4 threshold had none of the competing secondary questions that had plagued the early secession votes. The issue of whether Regions should be allowed to secede had already been settled; all that remained was the process. Unlike the votes on the initial secession amendments, the amendment that established the 3/4 threshold made only one change to the existing text: therefore, delegates were voting on that change alone. Therefore, this vote served the same purpose as a principle vote, despite not being called that in name: to isolate one issue from the rest to ensure a decisive mandate in favor of one position.

Let me reiterate this again: a vote was held, every delegate had a chance to voice their opinion, and a majority of voting delegates approved the amendment to set the threshold for secession at 3/4. The early "votes" on secession were re-done because of procedural missteps on the part of my predecessor that mangled the mandate resulting from those votes; no such missteps were made on the threshold vote. The vote establishing the 3/4 threshold was a principle vote in that it was an up-or-down vote on a single issue.

You say that "in any democracy, the majority rules", which I agree with, but then surely 50%+1 is enough on any issue. It's double standards if you think the threshold should be higher on issues that you disagree with.

Hardly. The issue here is that you are seeking to impose a quorum retroactively because you didn't get the result you wanted. When the vote on the 3/4 threshold was held, there was no rule stating that a majority of sitting delegates was required to pass an amendment (nor does the Convention had the power to make such a rule); therefore, any attempt to call a second vote on those ground is illegal and unconstitutional. This Convention, however, is not seeking to invalidate previous secession referendums by dropping the 3/4 clause out of the sky; rather, we are setting the rules for future generations, which is perfectly compatible with my previous statements on this issue.

The motion to call a principle vote on the threshold for secession is out of order.

I would like to see a piece of legislation that says it's "illegal and unconstitutional", before accepting that statement.

Either way, I won't continue to push - as it could always be reduced at a later date, following the passage of the constitution.
An additional amendment to clarify how a referendum can be called and who can vote. If it goes to a vote on it, I recommend voting on each sub clause separately.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

Also, at some point (because I feel like I will forget to do this unless I write it up now), I'd like to introduce an amendment as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only issue that I have with that amendment is that it might confuse new players if the names of states change.

[Clyde1998]

Nay

I feel that it will become too confusing for new players. I have nothing against the states being renamed in principle, although there should be no requirement for the Federal Government to recognise the changes.

[Clyde1998]

Seeing no objection (I think?), this amendment has been ADOPTED.

If anybody has a problem with this Article, particularly Section 3, now would be the time to mention it.

I think the "potential objection" was a late vote for the previous vote, rather than an objection.

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this will need to be debated - purely as I think it limits the ability of the regional legislatures to react to changes in it's electorate and activity levels.

[Clyde1998]

Aye to it being removed.

[Clyde1998]

Aye

[Clyde1998]

Nay