|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 09, 2020, 07:16:05 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 30 Print
Author Topic: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)  (Read 39589 times)
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,928
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #350 on: October 27, 2015, 10:46:34 am »

Nay
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,002


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #351 on: October 27, 2015, 10:56:10 am »

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.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



Sorry for the confusion.



Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,743


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #352 on: October 27, 2015, 10:58:08 am »

Aye
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #353 on: October 27, 2015, 11:11:19 am »
« Edited: October 27, 2015, 11:28:45 am by Lincoln Republican »

Nay

As I have tried to explain to this convention, we should not have a region named after a major slave holder, "Jefferson".

Personally, I think this is insulting to the people of the south to have their region named after a major slave holder.

Truman was OK with the suggestion of "Rayburn" so I don't know why his proposal doesn't reflect that.

And furthermore, why should the regions have the names of people anyway?

What's wrong with the non controversial, no problem to understand names of The North Region, The South Region, The West Region?

Why complicate things with particular names of individuals?  

I will propose an amendment to move Minnesota and Iowa to the West Region, if that will keep everyone happy, and it makes sense to have Minnesota and Iowa in the West Region.

I will also propose an amendment using the names The North Region, The South Region, The West Region.

Either that, or an amendment changing "Jefferson" to "Rayburn".

No region should have to be named after a major slave holder.  It sends the wrong message.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,002


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #354 on: October 27, 2015, 11:20:57 am »

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.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #355 on: October 27, 2015, 11:27:09 am »

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.

OK, sounds good.  Replace "Jefferson" with "Rayburn" so each region has a distinctive name.
Logged
MadmanMotley
Bmotley
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,278
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.77, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #356 on: October 27, 2015, 03:50:31 pm »

Nay.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #357 on: October 27, 2015, 06:05:27 pm »

Aye

Logged
Classic Conservative
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,648



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #358 on: October 27, 2015, 07:49:04 pm »

Don't agree with everything like Delaware but reluctant AYE.
Logged
NeverAgain
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #359 on: October 27, 2015, 08:01:49 pm »

Aye
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,487
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #360 on: October 27, 2015, 09:03:52 pm »

Nay
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #361 on: October 27, 2015, 09:04:04 pm »
« Edited: October 27, 2015, 09:05:53 pm by All In For The Royals »

NayVoting Aye because I don't want to be an obstructionist, but I have reservations that are listed below...

Considering the entire premise of this amendment is determining where the regions are going and what they will be named, it doesn't make sense to be adopting this if you just plan on making amendments down the road.

For me, having Kansas in the Pacific is a bit of a non-starter in terms of the map (though it won't affect my final vote on the constitution). While I understand the argument geographically, when you consider that over 80% of the population is on the east and south side of the state, it would be absolutely terrible for the state if it were put in a separate region from Oklahoma and Kansas. I understand it may be small to some, but as the only person in here that is actually from the state, I know that if this were adopted in reality, well, it wouldn't be adopted in reality, because people would point out what a terrible decision it would be. I understand that some don't think it is a big issue, but for practically reasons, it would undoubtedly hurt the citizens in the state that I come from.

Additionally, as I said before, states shouldn't be named after historical figures - think how confusing it will be to new members when we say "you're in the Fremont region" - especially those who aren't from America! Keep it simple - North, Southeast (IDS), and West.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,126
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #362 on: October 27, 2015, 09:24:53 pm »

Introducing this amendment first, then hope to follow up with another that will discuss regional names, because I don't think we've came to a full consensus on that yet.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



There are two changes here:
1. I don't like the idea of numbering the regions - I think it sends somewhat of a message that one region is being put over another. This is a concern I raised before but was not addressed, so if someone comes up with a  strong argument why "first, second,third" is better than how I worded it, I'll entertain it.
2. Moving Kansas to the South. I understand that there is a desire to try and keep the number of regions balanced, but 1)I don't think it looks better or difference on the prettiness scale, which a lot of people are going off of, and 2) most importantly, considering the population centers and economics of each state, it would be terrible to separate Kansas from Oklahoma and Missouri. I understand that Kansas is generally considered a part of the "Great Plains", which includes the Dakotas and Nebraska, but we are MUCH close to Missouri and Oklahoma in reality. Kansas has historically had low populations of registered Atlasians and with re-registering likely taking place, doing this won't have any sort of negative effect on the game. It just makes more sense economically, and I hope folks will understand that. This puts the South ahead 18-16-16, rather than 17-17-16, so ultimately they remain pretty even. I wish I had been involved more in CARCA and I would have pointed this out then - I know it is something I've mentioned before.

I don't mean to bog the process down, and as I see both of these as uncontroversial, I ask that there are no objections and we can proceed to discussing the naming of the regions and other relevant topics. If someone comes up with a valid reason for having "first, second, third," I will friendly that portion out of the amendment. Thanks. Smiley
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,845
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #363 on: October 27, 2015, 09:45:20 pm »

Aye on Truman's original, reluctant aye on the new one considering we can amend it.

Honestly, this mindset that Minnesota and Iowa MUST be in the region that's already going to be the most active, and I'm some sort of totalitarian despot for saying otherwise is mind-numbingly baffling.

the Carca should be the basis. We can deal with some minor shifts like the IA/MN one obviously, but we should operate from that as the starting point and make as few changes as possible. If we get too far into the weeds on state shifts, it will destroy any hope of agreeing to a constitution, much less ratifying it.

Of course, I completely agree with that. But the Minnesota/Iowa stuff, the only change I'd make, is blatantly obvious, is it not? I still have never been given any substantive reasoning why Minnesota and Iowa need to be in the North. Duke, Adam, and everyone else: give me a good reason and maybe I'll change my mind. That's all I'm asking for. I'm not a trouble-maker, I just want to make sure we get this right.

The committee was formed for a reason. Please let's not waste time on debating the map. I don't care if someone individually disagrees with it. We can't all get what we want. The map produced by the committee is the Will of The People and it should be the one we chose.

I find it ironic that some people who used The People to justify their support for secession are now going against Their choice in maps because they personally disagree with it. Yes, I can be sassy too.

That's not how it works, debate is a good thing. Look at gay marriage--in many states The People's Will was to not allow same-sex marriage, but people in favor of it didn't give up because of that. The debate went on, as it should, and now the right of equality under the law is recognized.

My point is that if someone is right, and I think I am here (blind squirrel, etc.), they should continue debate in order to influence The People to see things more clearly.

Trying to silence contrary opinion and healthy debate isn't democracy, it's literally the opposite of democracy.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,938
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #364 on: October 27, 2015, 10:16:35 pm »

     Aye, so we can go somewhere with this.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,002


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #365 on: October 27, 2015, 10:24:59 pm »

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.
Logged
Leinad
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,845
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #366 on: October 27, 2015, 11:37:25 pm »

Yeah, we had this debate, I understand that, but not really to a satisfying conclusion. No one has given me a good reason why Minnesota and Iowa should be in the Northeast. I mean, so far the best case in favor of that is "because I said so" (or, rather, because the CARCA in 2013 said so), while I've tried to provide clear reasoning for my arguments.

Maybe I'm being cynical by taking comments by Duke and others as trying to stifle debate. But I think it kind of says something when "we've already discussed this" is literally the only defense for a position. Maybe it's not the most important thing, but I think it probably matters some, and it's just such an obvious solution--keep Minnesota and Iowa with the majority of the current Midwestern states in the new West. It's a no-brainer to me.

You seem to think it will open a Pandora's Box of pedantic state allocation questions, Truman, but I don't think that's the case. Every single one of those other questions (Kansas, Indiana, Delaware, whatever) has a clear argument on either side. There's reasons to have it as the map does, without changing it further. That's why the CARCA map is mostly good--it gets it about 48 out of 50 either right or at least not obviously wrong. But there's no defense (at least, none stated) for the location of Minnesota and Iowa. That's the difference. It's the only obvious error in the map, everything else is far more subjective.

Sure, maybe other people will bring up pedantic amendments to move states around. But I'm not trying to do anything but move those two states, and even if this does happen as you predict, how bad would that really be? I mean, wouldn't you hate it if you were convinced that something was wrong yet easily fixable, but weren't able to change it because the powers that be value swiftness as more important than quality?

We're all legally elected/selected delegates of the Constitutional Convention. We all have the mandate to debate things and try to make the new Atlasia the best that it can be, however we think that can be done; not to see how quickly we can speed through a convention. If someone has an idea to make Atlasia better, why can't they try it out? In fact, we could easily get to a point where it's the "Leave Well Enough Alone" Caucus that's slowing everything down by complaining about how many amendments we're voting on. I know that the complaints of that have annoyed me more than the amendments themselves so far.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,002


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #367 on: October 28, 2015, 12:21:58 am »

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.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,238
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #368 on: October 28, 2015, 02:20:45 am »

AYE
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,034
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #369 on: October 28, 2015, 06:13:07 am »
« Edited: October 28, 2015, 06:56:32 am by windjammer »

Leinad, you participated to The Convention for Agreement on Regional Consolidation in Atlasia, here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=216567.0
The goal of this convention was to select a map. You proposed your map, everyone proposed their maps, and in the end a map was selected.

There is no justification to give you about why a state should be in this region and not in an another region, a majority of the people chose this map.

Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,939
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #370 on: October 28, 2015, 09:21:00 am »

because historically, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the culture and politics of Wisconsin than of the Dakotas.

No; in Atlasian history, Minnesota and Iowa have been more closely aligned with the rest of the Midwestern region, both culturally and politically.

I'm not sure why the CARCA is being considered a reliable source of information about what Atlasians would prefer out of a three-region system.  Presumably, the only people who participated were people in support of regional consolidation; those of us who opposed regional consolidation had no reason to support a process whose end goal was something we disagreed with.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,459
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #371 on: October 28, 2015, 10:24:45 am »

AYE on Truman's amendment, NAY on tmthforu94's.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,743


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #372 on: October 28, 2015, 10:28:19 am »

The CARCA was a massive undertaking and debate. If someone didn't feel the need to participate in it that is their own choice. It's not fair to simply dismiss it now because someone wasn't a participant in it. It's bigger than one or two people.

I'm open to listening to minor changes like moving Minnesota to the Midwest or something like that, because I do agree it's not a northern state, but the CARCA exists so this process would be streamlined, not hung up for weeks debating where each state should go. We'll never finish this convention if we start doing that.
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,487
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #373 on: October 28, 2015, 04:39:03 pm »

Aye on tmthforu94's amendment
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,002


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #374 on: October 28, 2015, 05:36:21 pm »


I don't think this has been brought to a vote yet.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 30 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines