Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:07:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED) (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)  (Read 63079 times)
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2015, 02:55:44 PM »

An 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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2015, 03:22:15 PM »

AYE!

The Convention has already voted to leave this issue in the hands of the Regions. The principle of this matter is no longer up for debate.

we should also allow for a process for the restoration to 5 regions while we are at it.
There is a process for that - a constitutional amendment.

Since we're in a Constitutional Convention I figure we should put the framework in so we could if future situations merit.
And we will - by allowing the Constitution to be amended.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #52 on: November 23, 2015, 07:47:28 PM »

With 22 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstention, and 2 members not voting1, this amendment has passed.

1Nice improvement, guys!



I now open the floor for final amendments to the text of this Article. IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS WITHIN 24 HOURS, I WILL MOVE TO CLOSE DEBATE ON THIS ISSUE.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #53 on: November 24, 2015, 03:38:59 PM »
« Edited: November 24, 2015, 05:29:36 PM by Senator Truman »

Seeing no objection, we will now proceed with a final vote on this Article. If this measure should pass, I will close debate on this topic and the below text will become the final text for Article I. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain; voting will last 48 hours or until all delegates have voted.

EDIT: On second though, this vote will last 72 hours (until 3:38 on Friday) in observance of Thanksgiving.

EDIT #2: THIS IS A VOTE TO END DEBATE IN THIS THREAD ONLY, NOT TO SET THE BELOW TEXT IN STONE. BY VOTING 'AYE', YOU ARE VOTING TO END DEBATE ON CONSOLIDATION, REGIONAL NAMES, & SECESSION. WE WILL CONTINUE DEBATING SECTION 3 IN THIS THREAD!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #54 on: November 24, 2015, 04:00:25 PM »

AYE!
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #55 on: November 24, 2015, 05:14:12 PM »

How can there be a final vote on this article when the article clearly isn't finished yet?


Sorry, I should have been more clear. We're voting on closing debate in this thread specifically, not the entirety of this Article. The debate on Regional powers (Section 3) will continue in the appropriate thread.

As such, I urge those who have voted NAY to change their votes (unless you feel we should continue discussing the number of Regions, Regional names, secession, etc.). My poor phrasing aside, this is NOT a final vote on this Article; rather, it is a vote to end debate on the number of Regions.

Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2015, 05:06:36 PM »

By a vote of 6 Ayes, 9 Nays, 2 Abstentions, and with 8 members not voting, this motion has FAILED.

As the Convention has elected to continue discussing this topic, I invite the delegates to propose topics for further debate. As we already have a thread devoted to discussing the powers held by the Regions, I ask that you refrain from making suggestions along the lines of "I think the Regions should be able to do X."
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #57 on: December 01, 2015, 04:57:57 PM »

Thee multiple threads are confusing and I can't keep track with what we are debating any given time. This is no fault of Mr. Truman, but that's how I feel about it. I think it would be easier to tackle one issue at a time and move on.

     It is pretty challenging to follow all these streams. Hopefully we'll be wrapping up some of these soon.
That's the plan. I don't want to shutter any ongoing conversations, but I don't plan on starting new threads until everything we're currently dealing with has been completed.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #58 on: December 03, 2015, 11:15:05 PM »

Sorry guys, I had a bit thing typed out last night, forgot to post it, and lost it. I'll get it rewritten sometime in the next day or so.
Perhaps you could give us a brief summary of what you have in mind, so that we have a general idea of where the debate is headed?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #59 on: December 08, 2015, 11:15:27 AM »

One issue is that a simple principle vote doesn't automatically imbue the document with a guarantee, in my opinion; it justifies what must next be brought up for a vote in terms of the formal language being added. So when we voted to let the regions name themselves, we didn't actually add any text to the document, for instance (as evidenced in what we voted on last).

Actually, we did:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would you still like to submit your amendment?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #60 on: December 10, 2015, 06:04:07 PM »

I am going to take the liberty of dismissing Griffin's amendment, seeing as the current text already states explicitly that the Regions may name themselves. Are there any other proposals on the floor? If you don't feel up to writing a formal amendment at the moment, feel free to simply explain the changes you would like to see made in shorthand - we can always work them into a formal proposal later.

For reference, here is the text as of the most recent amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #61 on: December 15, 2015, 01:16:30 PM »

I think everything looks good here more or less. Are we going to specify which article this belongs in now, or later?
My thought was that we would number the Articles once everything has been completed. And I agree that there is really nothing more to discuss here (hence why I motioned that we end debate three weeks ago - literally nothing has been proposed since then that wasn't already in the text).
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #62 on: December 17, 2015, 05:38:00 PM »

Barring any objections, in 24 hours' time I will call for a final vote on this Article. I URGE ALL DELEGATES TO READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE, LOCATED HERE, BEFORE THAT TIME AND ACT ACCORDINGLY. I'd really rather not spend another three weeks on this part of the Constitution because people misread the text. If you have any questions about what a particular clause means, please post them in this thread and/or send me a PM. It's time to get this Convention rolling again.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #63 on: December 17, 2015, 06:34:03 PM »

We're not voting yet (the vote will begin in ~24 hrs if there are no objections).
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #64 on: December 18, 2015, 08:42:58 PM »

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:

Quote
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.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #65 on: December 19, 2015, 02:45:36 PM »

Mathematically, there's only a slight difference between the minimum number of votes (mnv) required to secede under PiT's proposal compared to under Clyde/my proposal. Assuming a population of 40, a 40% turnout threshold with 75% support required would establish a mnv of 12; under PiT's alternate amendment, the mnv would be 13. In both cases, the number of "Yes" votes would account for 3/4 of the total number of ballots cast. In that sense, PiT's amendment is slightly tougher than Clyde's, as a result of 12-4 in favor of secession, assuming a population of 40, would result in the failure of the referendum.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #66 on: December 19, 2015, 04:20:47 PM »

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.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #67 on: December 19, 2015, 06:31:55 PM »

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:
That is unfortunate; however, we cannot simply keep re-voting on measures because certain individuals can't be bothered to do their jobs. Both sides were given time to voice their opinions, and a vote was held.

We held the vote on secession being legal twice, following a low turnout in the first vote.
This is a poor comparison. Many of the early votes on secession failed because the amendments being considered had structural flaws that caused supporters of secession to vote against them. The principle vote on secession was called because it was clear that the votes on these early amendments had not reflected a desire by the Convention to outlaw secession entirely. In short, delegates had been voting Nay for different reasons, some because they opposed secession, others because they thought there should be a different process for leaving the Union. By contrast, the amendment establishing the 3/4 threshold dealt with that aspect of the process alone; there were no other controversial changes made by that vote that would have caused the delegates to vote "Aye" unless they approved of the 3/4 provision.

It is very disturbing that so many delegates do not feel the need to do the jobs they were elected to do; however, I refuse to allow this Convention to be held hostage by their inactivity. The vote on the 3/4 threshold was fair, democratic, and produced a specific mandate in favor of that provision. I understand that you and others are unhappy with that, just as I am unhappy with the decision to allow Regions to separate from the Union, but that's how life works.

The most recent amendment proposed by Mr. Clyde is out of order. We will proceed with a vote on the turnout amendment proposed by Mr. Clyde and Mr. Truman tomorrow.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #68 on: December 20, 2015, 04:33:10 PM »

After carefully considering all options, I have determined that the best way to go about this is to vote on both of the proposed amendments simultaneously. Both the amendment introduced by Senator PiT and the one drafted by Clyde and myself seek to institute a turnout requirement for the secession referendum established in Section 2; the differences between the two are minor and do not warrant two separate votes. Therefore, a vote on BOTH amendments will begin now and will last for 48 hours. Delegates will have the option of voting AYE, NAY, or Abstain on each amendment; if both amendments "pass," the amendment which received the largest number of AYE votes will be adopted.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [   ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #69 on: December 21, 2015, 11:45:34 AM »

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.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #70 on: December 21, 2015, 04:02:48 PM »

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.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #71 on: December 21, 2015, 08:31:09 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [ X ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #72 on: December 22, 2015, 12:00:39 PM »

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:

Quote
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.
I agree with Clyde - we want the game to be accessible to new users, and changing too much of the 'base scenario' might complicate that. I would also note that the present Federal Constitution has no such clause, but this has not stopped the Midwest from giving its states alternate names.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #73 on: December 22, 2015, 05:20:54 PM »

By a vote of 5 Ayes, 9 Nays, and 11 delegates not voting, PiT's Amendment has FAILED.

By a vote of 7 Ayes, 7 Nays, and 11 delegates not voting, Clyde's Amendment has FAILED.



The floor is now open for debate of Ilikeverin's proposed amendment on state nomenclature. As I suspect many delegates will be unavailable for most of the next few days do the upcoming holiday, I will not call a vote on this amendment until Sunday, 12/27 at the earliest, so as to ensure that everyone has a chance to read and critique this proposal. For the record, I object to the amendment (in part to ensure that it is not automatically adopted before the Convention has time to debate the proposal).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


« Reply #74 on: December 28, 2015, 03:19:46 PM »

It's bad enough giving the regions carte blanche authority to rename their regions with stupid and ridiculous names, but giving them authority to rename their states with even more stupid names is one of the most ridiculous amendments I have ever seen proposed in my life here on this forum.

Will this madness never end?

     It's also been the law of the land for over a decade with no real downsides. A major factor in the health and strength of the regions is allowing them to have unique cultures determined by those living there. Stifling that doesn't help.

The law of the land allows regions to rename states but still mandates that the use of the real names be accepted as well for registering people and legislation and so on. I agree with winfield that if that changes there will be serious problems.
This. Allowing the Regions to propose alternate state names for internal purposes is one thing, but mandating that these names totally supplant real life names would create needless confusion, especially if said names are too greatly creative or if the Regions get into a habit of changing them frequently. Not only would this create confusion in the registration process, it could well become a problem in the Statute as well as time goes by. Legislation referring to the State of Frankfurter, for example, will become nearly unreadable if three years later Frankfurter is renamed the People's Republic of Cheese Cake (Who is going to keep track of the name changes and amend the Statue accordingly? We have enough trouble keeping it up to date as it is).

On this particular issue, I think it's best to abide by the status quo. The Regions can still propose the silly names if they want (rejecting this amendment won't change that), and if those names become a longstanding part of Atlasian culture, Congress can vote to recognize them alongside real life names. Allowing the Regions to unilaterally replace the real life names of their constituent states, however, opens the door for a great deal of confusion and chaos that outstrips the novelty benefit of this provision.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 14 queries.