Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Clark Kent]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bore]

Option 1
Nay

Option 2
Aye

[Chief Justice windjammer]

Aye

Nay

[VPH]

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.

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Option 1: Nay
Option 2: Nay

3/4 is too high a threshold and invalidating such a vote violates our democratic processes.

[Classic Conservative]

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.

[Clyde1998]

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".

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

3/4 is too high a threshold

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.

[Clyde1998]

3/4 is too high a threshold

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.

[Senator Cris]

Aye on PiT's amendment.
Nay on Clyde's amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lincoln Republican]

Option 1  Nay
Option 2  Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Associate Justice PiT]

Option 1: Aye
Option 2: Nay

[ilikeverin]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clyde1998]

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:

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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:

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.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Option 1: No
Option 2: yas

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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.

[Lincoln Republican]

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?

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

[Prince of Salem]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.