Number of Regions/Regional Governments (DEBATE CLOSED)

[Leinad]

I'm glad to see the debate has already been started up! Sorry to be a tad late to it. There's much to discuss, so I'll address several of the points together:


Three regions is best. What's the real difference between 2 regions and 3 regions, relative to now? They're both radical changes from what we currently have. If going from 5 to 3 regions isn't good enough, I don't think taking off another one will save us.


I think the CARCA map is a pretty good start, but I do have doubts regarding Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, and Nyman, DC. Specifically, I ask my fellow delegates, why would we move Minnesota and Iowa away from it's current region (most Midwestern states are in the new western region), to a region that, as Evergreen rightly points out, already has about twice as much activity as the other regions combined (at least as far as the Regional Governments Board)?

(Also, I feel weird putting DC, Maryland, and Delaware in the South. I suppose I'd allow it given the population disparities I mentioned above, but still, it feels as odd as putting North Carolina in the Northeast, or Michigan in the Pacific.)


Regarding secession, I think it's an important subject to discuss, but I agree we shouldn't beat the horse dead. For the record, I'm against the amendments of both the Pacific and Northeast Speakers, because I think they both go too far.

Let's back this up a bit, shall we? To the fundamental philosophical principles. What did you expect? We're building a constitution, not a sandwich. As you may know, it is my belief that government power is fundamentally derived from the rights of individual persons, and it is merely the government's job to safeguard those rights. Therefore, why can't they choose what government they want to safeguard those rights? Speaker Conservative pointed out a rather negative example of secession in 1861, but an example of secession in 1776 could also be brought up.

I'm not supporting or opposing Northeastern secession, or any specific secession (or, rather, that's not my purpose with this post), I'm just saying that I don't see the philosophical support for indiscriminately condemning every single one. The Federalists, my party, have always been a party of regional rights, so I'm surprised that the amendment comes from us. Explain to me what gives the federal government the right to keep regions from seceding under any and all circumstances and I'll change my tune, but until then I'll have to oppose that amendment.

Likewise, Speaker Evergreen's amendment also puts it in a one-size-fits-all manner. Maybe I would support it if it was more detailed--perhaps only of the secession attempt was supported by a federally-verified referendum that got 60% or something like that, but this could be via a 50%+1 vote, or even a legislative vote--heck, it would've made TNF's Communist Theme Park completely constitutional (unless of course someone opposed it, as they did, in which case it would've caused a Constitutional Crisis of ridiculous proportions due to the vagueness of the amendment).

In the South we have had two back to back elections for Governor, where the losing candidate has departed from the game.

That doesn't do it justice. We have had 3 straight region-wide single-winner elections where the loser has left: Flo > DeadPrez, PiT > Hagrid, and someone who's name I can't recall > DarTheBearNC. In fact, the last loser of a region-wide single-winner election in the South to not leave the game or go inactive immediately after is all the way back in February, a certain someone from North Carolina.

Not that it's that important of a distinction, mind you, it's just that it's a more impressive fact counting the Senate.

[Leinad]

Nay.

No one has explained what gives the federal government the absolute power to rule over people, even if the specific people don't want it, in every situation no matter what.

Let this not be a vote on Northeastern independence, or a sophomoric partisan rivalry bleeding over. This is an amendment that completely eliminates the right to self-determination, and basically gives the federal government absolute, unchallengeable power over the regions.

[Leinad]

What's the point in having a country if you're just letting regions leave whenever they get angry?

But in a democracy with all the rights enjoyed by Atlasians, giving unquestioned authority to a group of malcontents to secede is ridiculous.  

Opposing the Classic Conservative amendment doesn't imply support of the Evergreen amendment: a laissez-faire approach to secession. They're both positions that I think miss the point in different directions by assuming that all secessions are fundamentally equal, and there's never a time where their default position is wrong (I'd love to hear what Classic and those who back his amendment have to say about America's independence, or what Evergreen and those who back her amendment have to say about the Confederacy).

I think some people voted aye on the amendment to abolish the right of self-determination in all cases because they thought it was only a choice between those two options. At least, that's what Duke and Winfield make it sound like.

what is the point of seccession itself?

It certainly doesn't add a productive dynamic to the game

As former Senator Kalwejt said, it could add a layer to the game in diplomacy.

Probably a majority of people, including myself, have supported some level of relations with South America. An independent region would make it a three-way. Er, of diplomatic relations. (By the way, I wish we had about 10 times as many people so we could make 7 Atlasias and re-create the board game Diplomacy. Can I get an amen?)

I'm not sure why no one has brought it up, and why so many are reducing all secessions to nothing more than bratty children pitching a fit, and thus bringing nothing as far as activity to the game (a false assertion even with the current example--no matter what you think about the Northeast independence movement, it's created several threads worth of interesting discussion).

I also object to NeverAgains Admendment we already have an Admendment that passed, we don't need to keep debating this forever and ever.

We have passed an amendment banning secession.

Time to move on.

10 people voted for it out of 25. It won by a single vote. It's as settled as Einstein's hair after a convertible ride.

To completely brush aside any additional arguments, or any compromise, or anything else whatsoever regarding this matter just because your prefered choice already passed (by the skin of it's teeth) is absurd and borderline undemocratic. I had to deal with this crap at the Provisional Parliament--it's annoying.



Also, I second JCL's defense of self-determination. It's demagogic to call something un-American/un-Atlasian, so I'll resist the urge, but this is a founding principle we're crushing like a baseball on mom's vase with barely a second thought.

[Leinad]

I oppose NeverAgain's amendment as well, for the same reason that Tmth opposed it. BUT, I think it's the best idea so far.

Therefore, Mr. Presiding Officer, I'd like to propose this amendment (presumably to be voted on after NeverAgain's):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd also be willing to add an emergency clause--perhaps that the federal government (however we decide to set that up) can overturn this with, say, a four-fifths majority of the senate. Or maybe a different safeguard--perhaps the governor has to approve it, or it can be overturned if one senator from each region agrees. And then I'd be willing to add a counter to that--if it passes the referendum by, say, a three-fourths vote, it will go through anyway.

Of course, these numbers are just placeholders. The point is that the right to self-determination isn't infringed, but it needs to be by more than a 50%+1 margin. It's all about checks and balances, people.

[Leinad]

Abstain, for the same reasons that JCL articulated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just to clarify on this amendment, would this be a national vote or a regional vote?

Regional. I don't see why other regions should have a say, but specifically not an equal say.

I would refer you to a line in the Declaration of Independence that supporters of the right secession seem to have forgotten about:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but Classic Conservative's amendment says nothing about that.

Again, and this is applicable as a response to what Senator Truman said and a reminder to everyone, this is NOT just about the current Northeastern independence movement. Truman and others seemingly think it is, but it isn't. I encourage everyone to vote on this generically, don't vote for unquestioned federal control over the regions just because you don't like the NNP, their specific cause, or one of their members.

What is the source of government power? The people. It's only with their consent that the power is legitimate. I still have no clue where the right of the federal government to rule over them without any challenge comes from (hint: nowhere), and while I understand the concept that it's a relationship that the regions voluntarily entered, I don't see anywhere that the individual people in question entered into that agreement. And rights are given to individuals, governments (both regional and federal) are only there to safeguard those rights--so it's more than simply a question of regional powers, but one of rights and the very nature of government.

[Leinad]

I'd be surprised if a majority of the people opposing a right to secession are doing so based solely on the Northeast question - I know I'm not.

Hmmm...from reading you (who multiple times in your prior post brought up the Northeast seemingly as the main example of secession), Duke (who generalized secession as "letting regions leave whenever they get angry"), Winfield (who generalized ideas in favor of secession in at least some cases as "giving unquestioned authority to a group of malcontents"), and others--it seems like many are either talking about the secession in the context of the Northeast, or other very similar cases with little perceived justification.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the two most prominent examples I hear from the anti-secession-in-apparently-every-case-imaginable side are the Northeast and the Confederacy, which is obviously cherry-picking unpopular examples to make the point look better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, probably not, but I'm not sure it's as sensational as you put it. There's always a chance that the new dynamic would boost activity enough to allow both nations to be sustainable--not to mention, in case of failing, the probably good chance of the union merging again for mutual survival.

In general, I agree it would be more likely to hurt than help (although I see the arguments on both sides). But I'm not sure if that warrants the position of giving the federal government absolute, unchallengeable control over the regions, as the amendment that just narrowly passed explicitly does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why we should have a high threshold and make it a tricky process--so that it's never done on a whim if it ever is done. Again you invoke slavery to make your position look better, but the point is more general than that: if the federal government does something bad enough to provoke at least 60% or 67% of the people in an area to want to leave, maybe those people have a point?

Again, opposing the Classic Conservative amendment does not equal supporting Evergreen's withdrawn amendment. I'm against allowing a 50%+1 majority, I'd much rather make it a steeper hurdle to jump than that, where it isn't done just because people are "bored" or whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a difference: things such as violence/theft/fraud/destruction of property/etc. are direct, objective tramplings of other people's rights. They violate the Non-Aggression Principle, if you'll allow such blatant libertarianism. These are more obvious laws that protect our unalienable rights, while the laws placing the federal government in charge of people do no such thing.

Despite the fact I think your comparison is erroneous, I completely get what you're saying--that these are laws they implicitly agreed upon when registering. Then again, I'm not sure if implicit agreement is enough to qualify as consent of the governed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, I understand that secession is many times not warranted. But I would argue that what's warranted or not isn't the point--consent of the governed is still valid even if the governed want to do something that doesn't necessarily make sense to people. In other words, people don't need to be violently oppressed to have the right to self-determination.

(And I'd also argue that the central tenant of our Republic is not that we will submit our views to the democratic process, but rather that we all have unalienable rights that mustn't be trampled on--and it's the government's job to make sure people don't trample on those rights, and punish those that do, and nothing much else. But I suppose that's where modern liberalism has drastically diverged from classical liberalism.)

     In a representative Republic, the government is constituted to represent the people. If the people in a certain region of that Republic do not want to be represented by that government, then it undermines the basis of the nation's government.

     Pragmatically though, as I was saying before, people who really want to secede will go ahead and do so anyway. Unconditionally refusing to entertain their concerns because of some platitudes about patriotism and "preserving the union" only invites needless violence and death.

Completely agreed. Especially the first paragraph (which is basically what I said but phrased better ).

Honestly, I'm going to come out and say that I don't think three-fifths of the vote in a region is enough to grant independence. I think the option should be there, but three-fifths is far too low for such an important issue. I would say 2/3s at least, maybe even 3/4s.

Sure, you might be right. Would you rather there to be a backup plan/fail-safe as I described when I introduced the amendment, which itself might could be overturned by 3/4ths or something, or perhaps simply a higher threshold?

[Leinad]

Abstain.

It's simply not specific enough. Technically TNF's Communist Theme Park would be legal under this. It can't be so subjective to where a rogue regional government can succeed without the consent of anyone, specifically it's own people.

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.

[Leinad]

Mr. Presiding Officer, we have approved a motion to not allow secession.

Please put an end to this circus about secession and move on to other matters.

We cannot spend the next six months debating various and sundry motions about secession.

He's the presiding officer, not the dictator. It isn't his job to stifle debate and force us to keep a bad amendment--sure, if it's gone crazy or repetitive he should stop it, but it hasn't--we're still trying to settle it, we're not really going in circles. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason you and others are on this crusade against even talking about secession is that you like the first amendment and are afraid that another one will replace it because it only passed by one freaking vote.

And that's the key--may I remind all of the "it's settled" folk: it was 10 for, 9 against, 2 abstain, with 4 not voting--can you even call that a consensus when more people didn't vote for than those that did, and only 40% voted for it at all? It's certainly anything but settled!

Yes, we've voted on this issue enough. Whoever is leading this motley crew needs to bar anymore voting on the issue. It's just killing the efficiency of this convention. Like a lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to bring the same case over and over and over until you win it. That's why preclusion exists.

It's not the same case. My amendment, for example, is vastly different from Oakvale's (which, I'll totally agree, is silly--he just struck out "not" and called it an amendment) in that it details a simple mechanism, so it's the people with a say, not the government (either regional or federal). That's my goal in this secession stuff--self-government.

I've never heard of a country having some "process" in place for a region or state or territory to seceed.

Of course not, because (danger: cynicism ahead) governments naturally want unchallengeable authority over their people. I, however, am against that paradigm.

NAY (on principle - not because I'm inherently against the notion; this is like the third amendment of its kind now and this is getting ridiculous).

Please don't do this--that's really silly reasoning. I mean, voting "no" on protest won't keep people from making new ones anymore than simply protesting the number of amendments but still voting as normal. It could even make it last longer by making it harder to pass quality amendments!

Just vote on whether your against it or not, everyone. Sure, I guess it's a lot of amendments, but that's just because there's not a good consensus yet, and a number of different ideas. Trying to instill a "settle for less" attitude will just water down the Convention and make it far less productive than it can be--that it needs to be.

Yes, please do it, because we're literally at the point of casting successive votes on nearly identical amendments. Two of them were identical (this one and the past one), and the next two only differ based on 50% turnout versus 60% support.

This is getting rid-goddamn-diculous. It'll take a year at this rate to draft a new document, if we even get that far. If anything, nearly identical amendments should all be put up for a vote at once and if there is a conflict (as in, two or more variations pass), then hold a second "run-off" vote or whatever. There's no need for the procedure to be this tedious and extended. 

But it makes no difference! I, for one, am not going to be any more likely to not introduce an amendment due to some silly tactic of voting "nay" in protest than I would if you simply said "hey, this is ridiculous" and still voted based on what you thought. I mean, that would be stupid if a good amendment is voted down narrowly because someone is doing this crap!

Regarding the voting multiple amendments at the same time, yeah, I like that. Good idea!

[Leinad]

Aye!

I suppose Cris's idea is good enough. And I also agree with Truman on the wording and such--I was basically wording it the same as the original Classic Conservative amendment.

I also support Tmth's amendment. (Also, what's with people changing their display names to versions of Classic Conservative? I must admit, part of me wants to change mine to "Classic(al) Liberal!" But only part...)

This reminds me of that time that Governor Tmth et al just kept droning the Mideast with one constitutional abortion ban after another until they finally got their way. It seems like it was like the 10th one that finally passed, probably because people just grew apathetic over voting against abortion bans one right after the other and stopped responding to GOTV PMs. I wonder if that's the aim here?

Yeah, we're in collusion to spam the Convention with amendment after amendment until we get our way by boring everyone to submission.

(Seriously, though, we're not coordinating at all, especially not in some evil scheme to ruin Atlasia. Removeth thou tinfoil hat.)

[Leinad]

Can someone just answer me this: what country in this world with a valid, enforceable constitution has a provision allowing an entire region to seceed by popular vote? Or one that has a provision allowing secession at all?

A country that recognizes that power is fundementally derived from the rights of the people, and that if the vast majority of a certain group of people want a different government safeguarding those rights, the federal government has no legitimate justification to deny them that.

Obviously no country recognizes that. Doesn't mean they shouldn't.

[Leinad]

AYE!

Now it's tied 9-9 by my count, with 7 still to vote. Come on, people, side with human rights and against unchallengeable government!

[Leinad]

[1] 3 regions
[2] 4 regions
[3] 5 regions
[4] 2 regions

I think there's a place for regions in the game. Eliminating regions, or the federal government, would be a terrible mistake. The two-tiered system is a good thing--it needs to be reformed, sure, but that's what a Constitutional Convention is for!

However, I think there are too many seats for the level of activity. How do I know this? Not a single person declared for candidacy to the South legislature last election. We needed to elect people via write-in, and none of them have sworn in yet (not that I haven't reminded them to).

There are two ways to fix this general problem: increase the number of active players (which is hard), or decrease the number of seats. Surely this isn't a false premise, but rather basic math! And while there are multiple ways to decrease seats, decreasing the number of regions is the easiest way, as much as it has the regrettable unintended consequence of zapping history in the game (then again, we're already doing that intentionally via wiping all laws). It's something that I think we have to do to help sustain the New Atlasia.

That 4-region map above simply won't work--does anyone think that West region will have as much activity as that Northeast region? I know that the regions fluctuate in size--but starting it on such unequal footing is just ridiculous. That's why I'm against putting Minnesota and Iowa in the same region as the Northeast, as it is in the CARCA map, even though it's currently in the same region as most of that CARCA map's west region!

Also, I'm not sure if a 4-region map is such a great idea anyway. I think that all of the downsides of altering the system we've had for over a decade, longer than most of us have been here, are still felt in a 4-region system as much as a 3-region one (unless it's nothing more than merging the Pacific and Midwest--an interesting idea). And at the same time, I'm not sure if the upsides of cutting it to 3 are preserved--it's only half the decrease in regions. Not to mention, forget bicameralism completely if we do this--that would only work in a 3-region system if even then.

And as I said regarding 2 regions--if cutting it to 3 can't save us, I doubt 2 will.

(P.S. I am not a malcontent, not a jokester (well, I am, but not in every sense), not really a secessionist, and if anyone thinks I'm trying to kill Atlasia off, that's about as far from my intentions as calling Richard Dawkins an Evangelical Christian. Also, of course we're going to put restrictions on this. We're not going to let anyone leave with anything other than a supermajority from the people of that region--even I would oppose a less strict plan. Don't be silly.)

[Leinad]

I think there's a place for regions in the game. Eliminating regions, or the federal government, would be a terrible mistake.

Why?  Provide positive evidence for your assertion that such a system is a good idea.  You have provided evidence against your idea, which is an intriguing rhetorical angle:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, basically what Tmth said.

Also, my evidence is against 5 regions, not against regions in general. I suppose you could draw a conclusion that regions in general are a bad idea, but that seems as silly as giving up on sandwiches because you didn't like a tuna salad and peanut butter one.

To provide evidence for the idea, I'd say that the two-tiered system where people can be introduced to the game on the smaller scale of the regional legislature is good. Also, think about how much of the structure of the current Atlasia you'd lose: the positions of governor and regional legislator completely. This isn't an insignificant part of the game eliminating regions would destroy--it's a fairly large part.

I think that regions are a good idea, it's just that we don't really have the capacity for 5. Fortunately that seems to be the consensus here as well.

[Leinad]

I object considering the map endorsed by the convention of regional consolidation isn't this map.

Did anyone post the popularly selected one from a few months ago? I think that's our best choice going forward.

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.

But why?

Seriously, why on earth would we move Minnesota and Iowa into a different region (they're Midwest now, and most of the other Midwestern states are heading to the new Western region) especially when that new region (Northeast) is already the one that accounts for the most activity (which will be increased when you throw in the new states)?

It's preposterous!

Yes, I know, it's what CARCA said, but I objected to it then, and I received no good reason for why it's that way--except that in the last CARCA people complained (which is a stupid reason).

Give me a good reason why Minnesota and Iowa need to be in the Northeast and I'll gladly shut up. Until then I'm opposed to it--we're here to make the best map for Atlasia, not just parrot the CARCA map, and I'm convinced that those aren't the same thing.

The CARCA map is mostly fine, I'm just opposed to the Minnesota/Iowa bit. Truman's first map was probably the best we can get--I think we should go with that. Anyone else agree? (Or at least have a good enough reason why I'm crazy and need to shut up?)

[Leinad]

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.

[Leinad]

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.

[Leinad]

Aye!

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.

First of all, "a majority of the people chose this map" is blatantly untrue: for one thing, it wasn't a "majority," that's not how the voting system worked for CARCA, and for another thing, it wasn't "the people" (as in, the people of Atlasia or people elected by them), it was the people who participated in CARCA. And not everyone did. Some didn't participate in it because they opposed it, for example. Your presidential analogy is off-base because a presidential election is A) binding/official and B) ideologically neutral.

So much has changed since then. At that point the Constitutional Convention wasn't a reality, South America was still in it's early stages, and public opinion on consolidation was radically different. Please stop acting like CARCA is some Mandate from God and the universe will blow up if we dare stray from it.

Legitimately elected/selected delegates have the right to float around ideas for us to vote on. That's the idea of the convention, really.

If my amendment fails, I suggest we hold a "CARCA Redux" in which every delegate can propose a map and the Convention selects one via STV. Obviously, the principle vote to adopt a 3-Region map would still be binding, so any proposals that have more or less than 3 Regions would be discarded.

I completely agree with this suggestion. Although, fortunately, your map seems to be doing well.

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.

Maybe I forgot to mention it. I think I said it somewhere, but anyway, here it is: right now, the Northeast has many more times the activity as the West or Midwest--and I'd wager more than both of those regions combined. Especially when we add much of the Mideast to it. I understand that the regions change in activity, but I'd presume it will be this way for at least the near future.

And while I don't think the status quo carries much weight, I'd put much more stock in that than CARCA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, but as I alluded to with my gay marriage analogy, the will of the people often changes with more information and arguments. And I suppose I could've phrased it better: while a person would be upset if their idea is rejected due to most people genuinely opposing it, it's another level of justified rage entirely if the idea is rejected due to people saying "no, this is going on too long" or "we already settled this with an informal convention a few month ago."

And that's the key--the difference between something not passing due to it being against the will of the people, or something not passing because certain people who think they run the place stifled debate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks! The internet has enough people insulting each other already, so I figure it would be overkill for me to add to that mess.

[Leinad]

Aye!

Empty space is irrelevant--I've yet to hear a reason why that actually matters. As far as national sovereignty, who's to say the NPCs aren't joining voluntarily?

Anyway, I think it would be fun to register in Jamaica or Cuba or whatever. It adds a new element to the game, even if it's a very small one.

Leinad:

Well, you can say as well that not all the people voted for the election of the delegates. The CARCA represented every people that wanted to participate: DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

The key difference is this: the Convention is official, it's binding, the CARCA was ultimately not. As much as you and others keep saying it was, it's still just an informal meeting of certain unelected people.

It's completely different. Yes, the CARCA happened, it's map was a good starting point, but, and this is the main idea I'm trying to get through: we are under no obligation to follow what happened at the CARCA to the letter. And I'm glad the majority of my fellow delegates agree with me on that.

[Leinad]

The amendment failed to pass.

AYEs: 6
NAYs: 13
ABSTAINs: 2

There were 3 abstentions, I think (me, Windjammer, and JoMCaR).

It was, but:

Changing my vote to Aye.

[Leinad]

Aye.

3/4th might be a little steep for me, but it's alright. As long as the right to self-determination is recognized to an extent, providing a check to federal tyranny, I'm happy with this.

Actually, Truman's  idea of regional names is a good one.

After all, the nation has a particular name, Atlasia.

There's a difference. What would the alternative be? "Nation?" There's no simple alternative analogous to "West" or "South" or whatever, so a particular name is, in that case, the most logical choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a bit of a task to ask people to connect these names to those regions. They already connect the West, the South, and the North to the regions in question. It's natural. There's nothing new to learn.

I do not believe that the regions should be allowed to name their own region.

Nor do I believe that the regions should have any authority to change the name of their region.

The Atlasian constitution should set the boundaries of the regions and the names of the regions, so they are set, and cannot be changed.

Otherwise we end up with ridiculous names like the Imperial Dominion of the South, the Dirty South, the Althing, etc, etc, etc, or whatever.

As well, the Atlasian constitution should lay out the names of the officers of the regions.  All regions should have a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, an Assembly, members of the Assemblies shall all be known as Representatives.

That way we avoid ridiculous titles such as Emperor or Grand Vizier, King in the North, or whatever.

We have to set standards and make them permanent.

So, you trust the federal government to come up with The Almighty Standard, but don't trust the regional governments with that ability? If it's so likely that the regions will screw it up, why are you so sure the federal government won't do the same?

And what on earth is wrong with culture? What on earth is wrong with individuality? Why on earth are you arguing for conformity over creativity? Rigid rules over the ability to make up our own minds on details that have nothing to do with the mechanics of the game, but merely the fun names and titles we give ourselves?

After talking about how terrible the idea of legislature-elected senators is, I'm shocked to hear you, Winfield, take such an elitist stance on this, centralizing the control among the highest up the pyramid, and leaving the regular folk to shut up and accept this one-size-fits-all approach, instead of fine-tuning the regions to what the people themselves want.

[Leinad]

So what are the rules on letting the regions decide? Will that be determined seperately? Because there are clear disagreements in this Convention about that. This ConCon was called to make this nation better that before, and this is something that would make Atlasia worse that before, even if just slightly.

If it needs to be officially proposed, than I hereby offically propose to make it where the regions can decide their own name.

[Leinad]

Truman hasn't opened the voting yet, right? Why is everyone suggesting the same things over and over again?

Anyway, I suggest to the Presiding Officer that there be two votes: one for the starting names, and another for whether the regions are allowed to change the names or not.

And while I'm at it, this is a good a time to bring it up as any: I presume the three new regions will have constitutional conventions of their own, right? Are there any details set up for that? If not, that should be defined in some way.

[Leinad]

I do agree with North as being superior to Northeast. However, I must insist that the the right of the regions to change their names be preserved.

Agreed on both accounts. It's silly to call Wisconsin and Illinois the "Northeast," but it's even sillier to keep these regions from changing their names.

[Leinad]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Leinad]

AYE!

Out of hand, out of shmand. If the majority of people in a region decide a name is best, what right do other people have to tell them not to do it? If it's that important, re-register in that region and vote for a boring name, or campaign to voters for the boring name of your choice. (Not that I'm against boring names, I just don't think they should be federally mandated.)

I mean, how bad can it get? Did Atlasia die when the South changed it's name to "Dirty South?" Or "Imperial Dominion of the South," and renamed Governors "Emperors?"