Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Honestly, I don't think that proposal will prove stable in the long term. It is based on the assumption that the Northeast will continue to account for the vast majority of activity long into perpetuity, which is highly unlikely. Furthermore, putting Washington in the same Region as South Carolina makes absolutely no sense: the two have nothing in common geographically, culturally, or historically.

Or putting Indiana in with New York as Indiana has nothing in common geographically or culturally. I hereby object to any and all maps that put Indiana in a Northeastern region. It's disappointing that this body rejected maintaining 5 regions.

Indiana and New York are both Northern states that fought for the Union during the Civil War, border the Great Lakes, have sizable German-American communities, and were once home to the Algonquian Indian culture. The two states are, by far, a much better fit than Washington and South Carolina.

But also many Hoosiers had sympathy with the South during the Civil War. My own (Anglo/German/Native American) family included.

That hardly makes Indiana a Southern state, anymore than the fact that east Tennessee had large pro-Union pockets makes it a Northern state. Historically and geographically, Indiana has been part of the North, and while it's true that there are some grey areas, we have to draw the line somewhere.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE!

Aye, but I will propose an amendment adopting the map endorsed by the will of the people later.

I agree with Windjammer. The only difference between this map and the CARCA's map is the position of Minnesota and Iowa. We can change that with another amendment.

Actually, I amended my amendment to put MN and IA in the Northern Region yesterday, after Windjammer and others objected to its being in the West. The text we are now voting on is therefore identical to the CARCA map.

I will amend my amendment to put MN and IA in Franklin (the North), which is the only difference between my proposal and the CARCA map.

Let's move with Truman's amendment.
A 48-hours vote is now open. Please vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I had intended to replace "Jefferson" with "Rayburn" once this amendment was adopted. If we'd rather let the Regions name themselves, that's fine by me, but I'd rather not enshrine such bland names as "the North" and "the West" in the Constitution. It's a stylistic point, and I won't protest if that's what the Convention wants to do, but I personally would prefer a more original approach.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

No-one is trying to stifle debate, Leinad. The point is that we've already had this debate, twice if you count the original CARCA, and spending four weeks debating every possible combination of states is a waste of time. Most of the people who participated in the CARCA are now delegates to this Convention (Windjammer, myself, VPH, Never Again, yourself, Duke, Griffin, etc.), so it's not like this is a radically different group of people. Yes, debate is a good thing, but endlessly arguing over minor details that, in the long run, will have virtually no effect on the overall health of the game is counterproductive. One only has to read through the threads from the last Convention held on this board to see what can happen when the drafting process is allowed to be brought to a halt by a few minor objections.

My greatest fear for this Convention is that we will become so bogged down in debating minor details and legalistic niceties that we will loose sight of our true goal: building a new, better game for all to enjoy. The fact that we frittered away three weeks repeatedly debating and voting on identical amendments to legalize/outlaw secession only deepens my conviction that decentralization is the greatest challenge we face as a deliberative body. Whether Minnesota is in the North or the West is, in the end, entirely irrelevant. I'm not unalterably opposed to transferring MN and IA to the West, but I fear that doing so will open the door to successive amendments, and before long we will have 25 different map proposals bogging down debate for a month.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The trouble is, Leinad, that frivolous amendments - and lets be clear, changing the allegiance of two states will have no practical effect on this game - have the potential to bog down the Convention for weeks on end, thus preventing us from dealing with the really important issues like devolution, the size and structure of the national legislature, and a legislative reboot. I am all in favor of spending the necessary time to get this right, but spending so much time debating unimportant details is not a good use of the Atlasian people's time. Every day we delay the adoption of the new Constitution, the situation in Atlasia worsens - look what has happened to the Pacific in the weeks since this Convention began - and the more likely it becomes that people will loose hope and leave.

Furthermore, I'm yet to hear a convincing argument as to why MN and IA should be in the West. You say that most of the current Midwest is being incorporated into the new Western Region (which is true), but make no argument as to why this should continue to be the case. We are trying to build a new Regional system, not tweak the existing one, and thus allocating states based on their current distribution makes little sense.

Why, then, should MN and IA remain in the North? Because having MN and IA in the Northeast is the most geographically balanced, aesthetically pleasing, and (judging by the fact that the current proposal was endorsed TWICE by a convention of active citizens) popular proposal on the table; because in the long term, transferring those states to the West will have no tangible effect on the game; and because historically, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the culture and politics of Wisconsin than of the Dakotas. Ultimately, this isn't an important issue, and as such I will not object to an amendment putting MN and IA in the West, but its not as if the current map is completely arbitrary whereas your proposal is unquestionably correct.

Towards the end of your post, you pose an important question: wouldn't I hate it if the Convention made what I viewed as an incorrect decision and there was nothing I could do to change it. Doubtlessly, I would; however, this Convention is not about me or my views, nor is it about the individual opinions of anyone in this chamber. Our sole, unalterable purpose is to enact the will of the Atlasian people. Some of us are going to have problems with that will - I myself am disappointed that we have chosen to legalize secession - but this is irrelevant. Objection should always be a last resort, employed when - and only when - a proposal threatens to damage the stability of our new Constitution. When I stood aside for Cris in the P.O. election, it was not because I didn't think I could do the job, but because I knew that Cris could do it just as well, and I did not see a reason to further divide the Convention when we would get a good result either way.

I must say though, Leinad, that I appreciate you laying out your position so respectfully and in such detail, rather than resorting to cries of "LOL you fascist" as have others in this chamber. We may differ in our approach to this monumental task, but it's refreshing to see someone taking this seriously for once, rather than using their office as a soapbox from which to lambast their opponents.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye on tmthforu94's amendment

I don't think this has been brought to a vote yet.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Can someone explain which amendments we're voting on? I thought I voted on Truman's amendment but it seems there are two amendments and because we've been going back and forth for pages over individual states, I can't track down what the hell else we're voting on right now.

We're still voting on my amendment.

If we put Kansas into the South, then MN/IA are going to have to go in the western region. We risk de-populating the western region in natural terms by too much. I think that things will even out to a degree in terms of population if a legislative seat regulation remains in the provision, but we can't imbalance them naturally by too much.

When you take MN, IA & KS out of the western region, it is left with 28 people currently (out of 144). That's less than 20% of the game.

I'm okay with putting KS in the South and MN and IA in the West. Both are sensible changes with concrete arguments behind them, so if that's what it takes to get a majority on board, I'm all for it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's hard to tell with all the competing proposals flying around, but I think these are the suggestions that have been made in regards to the Regional map:

1. Adopt CARCA as is (Truman)
2. Adopt CARCA, but move MN and IA from the North to the West (Leinad)
3. Adopt CARCA, but move KS to the South (Tmth)
4. Adopt a new map that puts Indiana in the South (JCL)
5. Adopt a new map divided into Eastern, Central, and Western Regions (Bmotley)

If my amendment fails, I suggest we hold a "CARCA Redux" in which every delegate can propose a map and the Convention selects one via STV. Obviously, the principle vote to adopt a 3-Region map would still be binding, so any proposals that have more or less than 3 Regions would be discarded.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As I have said previously, I have no problem with putting Kansas in the South. I also think the grammatical changes made (removing "first," "second," and "third") are a good idea, and as such I will support this amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Honestly, I think this is a good compromise. With KS in the South and MN/IA in the West, we end up with an attractive, balanced map that still reflects the bulk of the CARCA proposal. I also replaced "first," "second," and "third" with "Northern," "Southern," and "Western," so as to avoid 'ranking' the Regions and changed the name of the Southern Region to Rayburn, which removes any seeming endorsement of slavery. It may not be exactly what the CARCA hardliners wanted, but it's a good map that we should all be able to get on board with.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Abstain

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The amendment failed to pass.

AYEs: 6
NAYs: 13
ABSTAINs: 2

There were 3 abstentions, I think (me, Windjammer, and JoMCaR).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With the failure of Griffin's amendment, this is the current text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hereby offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would remind the delegates that we have already approved a Principle Vote legalizing secession, so rejecting this amendment will NOT result in secession being outlawed in the new Constitution. This vote will merely determine the method by which Regions may withdraw from the Union.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

What is the rationale against the regions being named West, Southeast and Northeast?

I think the current names are more original and add a bit of creative flair to the map; however, if the Convention would prefer compass names, I'd be fine with that as well.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Delegates have 24 hours to object to Truman's amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd like to remind everyone that the amendment under consideration deals with secession procedure, not the names of the Regions. Once this amendment has been adopted/rejected, I will call a STV principle vote in which ever delegate may propose names for the three Regions ("Let the Regions name themselves" would also be an option).


Per the delegate from the Mideast's objection, a vote is now open on Truman's amendment. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

As promised, we will now proceed with a two-stage principle vote on Regional nomenclature. Delegates have 72 hours to suggest names for the proposed Regions; at the expiration of that time, a 48-hour principle vote will be held to select the best proposal.

For the sake of simplicity (and so that I know which name goes with which Region), I ask that you submit your proposals in this format:

Region A (blue) _____________________
Region B (green) _____________________
Region C (red) _____________________

Just to confirm - after final Constitution has been approved by the delegates, does it go to a public vote on the proposed constitution?

Correct. Just like Constitutional Amendments, the new Constitution will need to be ratified by 4 of the 5 Regions.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A principle vote is now open on the question of Regional nomenclature. Please rank the following proposals according to your preference. Voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

RESULTS of the PRINCIPLE VOTE on REGIONAL NOMENCLATURE

Round I
(6) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4) West, South, Northeast
(2) West, South, North
(1) Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin
(1) Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton

As "Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin" has the greatest number of second preferences, "Wolfen, Griffin, Hamilton" is eliminated

Round II
(7) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4) West, South, Northeast
(2) West, South, North
(1) Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin

"Fremont, Rayburn, Franklin" is eliminated

Round III
(8 ) Let the Regions Name Themselves
(4 ) West, South, Northeast
(2 ) West, South, North

With a majority of voting delegates in favor, the Convention has elected to devolve this issue to the newly-established Regions.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes, this was probably the best result in the long run. I'm glad to see that my Region won't be named after a sockmaster, at any rate.

As the issue of Regional powers is being discussed in another thread, I think this wraps up discussion on this topic. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours, I move that we consider this the final text for Article I:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.