|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 05:46:40 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 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 Print
Author Topic: Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)  (Read 39300 times)
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,459
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #625 on: December 20, 2015, 05:34:40 pm »

OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[   ] AYE       [X] NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[X] AYE      [   ] NAY     [   ] Abstain
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,167
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #626 on: December 20, 2015, 05:44:25 pm »

Option 1
Nay

Option 2
Aye
Logged
Chief Justice windjammer
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,015
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #627 on: December 20, 2015, 05:50:00 pm »

Aye

Nay
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,460
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #628 on: December 20, 2015, 06:05:56 pm »


OPTION 1: PiT'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 in favor is less than 1/3 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.

OPTION 2: Clyde & Truman's Amendment
[   ] AYE      [  X  ] 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.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: -1.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #629 on: December 20, 2015, 08:03:33 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
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #630 on: December 20, 2015, 09:23:27 pm »

Option 1: Nay
Option 2: Nay

3/4 is too high a threshold and invalidating such a vote violates our democratic processes.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,648



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #631 on: December 21, 2015, 09:16:26 am »

OFFICIAL BALLOT
Vote on Turnout Amendments

OPTION 1: PiT's Amendment
[  ]AYE       [ X ]NAY      [   ] Abstain
Quote
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.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,925
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #632 on: December 21, 2015, 10:24:24 am »

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".
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #633 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
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,925
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #634 on: December 21, 2015, 01:46:31 pm »

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.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,553
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #635 on: December 21, 2015, 03:58:35 pm »

Aye on PiT's amendment.
Nay on Clyde's amendment.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #636 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
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,925
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #637 on: December 21, 2015, 04:57:57 pm »
« Edited: December 21, 2015, 05:02:06 pm by 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.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #638 on: December 21, 2015, 08:24:36 pm »

Option 1  Nay
Option 2  Aye
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #639 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
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,919
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #640 on: December 21, 2015, 08:32:19 pm »

Option 1: Aye
Option 2: Nay
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #641 on: December 22, 2015, 10:04:54 am »

Option 1: Nope
Option 2: Yup

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.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,925
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #642 on: December 22, 2015, 10:28:35 am »

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.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #643 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
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,744


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #644 on: December 22, 2015, 03:01:39 pm »

Option 1: No
Option 2: yas
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #645 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
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,919
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #646 on: December 22, 2015, 07:20:31 pm »

     I understand that the Midwest region has a longstanding tradition of giving its states alternate names, and I support their self-determination in this regard.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #647 on: December 23, 2015, 03:49:37 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?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,919
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #648 on: December 23, 2015, 05:04:58 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.
Logged
Prince of Salem
JoMCaR
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,634
Peru


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #649 on: December 23, 2015, 11:09:28 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 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