Misc Articles (Amendment, Supremacy, Officeholding, &c) LAST CALL for new topics
Leinad:
Alright, we'll let this "foundation" pass and then we can hold a principle vote on how we ratify amendments.
Also, if anyone thinks we missed anything, I think now would be the time to speak up about it.
Kingpoleon:
Shouldn't it be "a majority/three-fifths of voters in two thirds of the regions"?
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee:
Quote from: Northeast Speaker Kingpoleon on April 13, 2016, 08:15:56 PM
Shouldn't it be "a majority/three-fifths of voters in two thirds of the regions"?
He is trying to replace the regional ratification process with a natonal popular referendum.
It has been a big push for years, and has usually been pushed for either just before or just after an attempt to curb regional powers came to the forefront. Therefore it usualy draws immense ire from regionalists.
This constitution establishes their powers, and protect's their rights. We have fought so hard to get devolution and other things into this constitution. Removing the regions from this process denies them a say in any future changes to those provisions, including their removal or even abolition of the regions. Such attempts have occured every two years or so since I joined in 2008. 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015.
Unconditional Surrender Truman:
Quote from: Northeast Speaker Kingpoleon on April 13, 2016, 08:15:56 PM
Shouldn't it be "a majority/three-fifths of voters in two thirds of the regions"?
Such is the status quo; however, I believe that amendments to the national Constitution should be ratified by the national electorate. Under the current system, it is not inconceivable that a widely popular amendment could fail because of an uneven distribution of the population. For example:
Region A: 50 Yes, 10 No
Region B: 19 Yes, 21 No
Region C: 18 Yes, 22 No
Under the "Ratification by Region" System, this hypothetical amendment would have failed despite over 60% of voters having supported it at the polls. That strikes me as enormously undemocratic. Under my proposal, the right to amend the Constitution would lay with the body it was created to represent: the national people.
Of course, others will disagree with me, so a vote will be in order once this amendment is adopted; however, I strongly believe that my proposal is the correct one, and I urge my fellow delegates - when the time comes - to vote to sustain it.
Unconditional Surrender Truman:
Quote from: Eternal Senator North Carolina Yankee on April 13, 2016, 09:02:50 PM
This constitution establishes their powers, and protect's their rights. We have fought so hard to get devolution and other things into this constitution. Removing the regions from this process denies them a say in any future changes to those provisions, including their removal or even abolition of the regions. Such attempts have occured every two years or so since I joined in 2008. 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015.
I see your point, and I don't discount the danger of eroding Regional authority too greatly (hence my steady support for devolution at this Convention). At the same time, however, I'm wary of denying the national electorate a voice in shaping the national Constitution. The only circumstance in which a vote of the Regions would turn out differently than a vote of the nation as a whole is when the Regions are out of step with public opinion. In that sense, the "Ratification by Region" system is a bit like the RL electoral college: it's perfectly rational and democratic... until it isn't.
I'm cautiously intrigued by your earlier proposal. To clarify: your idea was that the national electorate could overturn the result of the Regional referendum(s) by a 2/3 vote, yes?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page