Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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?

[Where We Griff 1 We Griff All]

OK, so allow me to try to rehash what I wrote but lost. This isn't everything but it's a part and I've failed to get it all posted thus far so here we go:

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).

Furthermore, there were minute errors like the scratching of the "Article" identifier in the last respective amended vote we had on the particular topic. I don't believe the PO gets to automatically alter text in the document based on a mistake in the amendment process in order to clarify it; what we vote on and approve in terms of text is actually what is in the document.

With that being said, this is everything we have approved thus far in the document (excluding any simple principal votes that didn't result in a later specific amendment) and so this is what the actual document from this thread currently looks like. I had begun editing the document in preparation of offering an amendment but I cannot recall specifically what I had edited other than what I have put in bold below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would you still like to submit your amendment?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Where We Griff 1 We Griff All]

I think everything looks good here more or less. Are we going to specify which article this belongs in now, or later?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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).

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye.

We're not voting yet (the vote will begin in ~24 hrs if there are no objections).

[NeverAgain]

Aye.

We're not voting yet (the vote will begin in ~24 hrs if there are no objections).

I didn't read the timestamp. Apologies.

[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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Chief Justice windjammer]

Are we really going to debate secession?

Because this has always been retarded.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [   ] NAY     [   ] Abstain

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/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.