Petition for a Constitutional Convention

[RC]

Sure

X ReaganClinton

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have seen three different conventions in my day. The most successful one required blood flowing in the streets and backroom deal by four parties on the basic underlying framework to achieve a success. It also took almost a year.

The most successful one without all that took 6 months and only made minor changes and structural improvements without changing anything big.

The least successful one had little in terms of direction beyond just a desire to see changes, it wondered aimlessly for 3 months and then it was shut down without even agreeing to a proposal.

If Windjammer wants reforms, and in a reasonable time frame, he would be better off negotiating with Congress.

These conventions also tend to sap activity and attention spans from Congress and the regions and thus create a self fulfilling prophesy.

[Lumine]

I'm usually not on Yankee's side on constitutional reforms - to put it mildly -, but there's a lot of merit in the idea that something like a Constitutional Convention is not something to be done on a whim or without a clear idea of what one wants to accomplish.

I would dispute the point of being "better off negotiating with Congress" given the historic reluctance to embrace meaningful or drastic constitutional changes and the sheer difficulty to muster the required quorum with legislators, but at the same time, it's important that there's clarity on whether such a Con Con would seek to address very specific issues (in which case the idea of going to Congress makes more sense), or whether it is intended to make larger changes into the constitutional framework of the game, in which case calling for one makes a lot more sense.

All in all, having a public debate - here, not in Discord - and more importantly, having proposals (like Talleyrand's) of the problems people or parties can identify, and the solutions they believe are best, is what truly matters. If one can have a more transparent public debate and have a clearer idea of the intentions or aspirations behind this, it will be to our collective benefit and/or clarify whether a Con Con is actually needed (it may well be, a lot of things aren't working) or not.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

yeah, we need reforms, but this isn't the way to do it. I also don't feel I can trust certain power-hungry persons from trying to wrangle this to their advantage.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

X Blairite

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm usually not on Yankee's side on constitutional reforms - to put it mildly -, but there's a lot of merit in the idea that something like a Constitutional Convention is not something to be done on a whim or without a clear idea of what one wants to accomplish.

I would dispute the point of being "better off negotiating with Congress" given the historic reluctance to embrace meaningful or drastic constitutional changes and the sheer difficulty to muster the required quorum with legislators, but at the same time, it's important that there's clarity on whether such a Con Con would seek to address very specific issues (in which case the idea of going to Congress makes more sense), or whether it is intended to make larger changes into the constitutional framework of the game, in which case calling for one makes a lot more sense.

All in all, having a public debate - here, not in Discord - and more importantly, having proposals (like Talleyrand's) of the problems people or parties can identify, and the solutions they believe are best, is what truly matters. If one can have a more transparent public debate and have a clearer idea of the intentions or aspirations behind this, it will be to our collective benefit and/or clarify whether a Con Con is actually needed (it may well be, a lot of things aren't working) or not.

Notice I said, "in a reasonable time frame". If a multi-partisan deal were to be struck, as was discussed in that scenario, yes Congress would be given and such a deal would ensure any concern about "necessary quorums" whatever that means. If you mean passage threshold that would be a given in that scenario.

I certainly support debating the problems in public. Discord can suck...

[lfromnj]

Is there any time limit to the petition?

[windjammer]

XWindjammer

[Former President tack50]

Ok, I will come forward to 100% oppose this. There is absolutely 0 reason to have a constitutional convention right now; none whatsoever. Our system of government is working very well at the moment, and any changes are minor enough that they can be passed by Congress.

I was even tempted to call out Windjammer on that during his campaign and the only reason I didn't do it was partisan concerns (making my party's nominee look bad), so I will call him out now, after the election

Presumably, the objective of a new Constitutional Convention would be to write a new constitution from scratch, or alternatively; to at least do a comprehensive rewrite of many sections. Now, I am sure Yankee can and will correct me on this, but let's look at why Atlasia has changed constitutions in the past:

1st to 2nd: The 1st constitution was a mess so awful that it lasted for less than 1 year. It was so bad that it has its own wiki page detailing why it was so bad

2nd to 3rd:

3rd to 4th: As a (successful) attempt to revive a game that was in the middle of an existencial crisis.

I will say that I am not opposed to any and every reform. I am in support of a return to unicameralism for instance. In my time in Congress I also proposed amendments to allow for the recall of Senators, or to increase direct democracy by allowing citizen referendums. And I am sure there are other reforms I could definitely support. To fix Atlasia's uncompetitiveness problem I even proposed the radical idea of abolishing party registration and having all non-partisan elections (a change that didn't even require a constitutional amendment!)

However what I will oppose 100% (at least for now) is a Constitutional Convention. The Fourth Constitution is working perfectly fine and is not a disaster like the First Constitution (or in more recent times, the First Constititution of Fremont). And Atlasia is not facing an existencial crisis like it faced in 2014-15. (I am not sure why the 2nd constitution was changed though, but I doubt the situation is comparable either)

You can argue perhaps that Atlasia is broken electorally in some ways even if that is a take I disagree with at the moment (it has not been true since August 2020); but the system of government itself is working 100% as intended and without problems. At most you can argue the Senate as currently designed is a left wing gerrymander but knowing Yankee I doubt the Federalist party is in favour of Senate abolition

I will not be signing this; and if this somehow goes through, I will consider running for delegate of the Constitutional Convention with the aim to keep "The Union as it is, the Constitution as it is".

[thumb21]

I'm way too protective of the constitutional right to healthcare and to unionize that we passed when Labor had a supermajority to take a risk like this!

Its still an interesting idea and if it happens, it would be fun to participate.

[Continential]

Is there any time limit to the petition?

Not as far as I know.

[Peanut]

This could lead to fun things, but prima facie I oppose it. We can't just rush into this without knowing what we'd change, but some modifications to our system of government could be in order depending on what is proposed.

[PSOL]

X PSOL

It’s time

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Rushing into what? Rushing into starting a petition of voters to begin a constitutional process as old as the Republic? How else are you supposed to propose constitutional reform if not like this? It's already happened like 3 times before, and we are overdue for another one.

The current system has been around for the equivalent of like 2 or 3 generations, Atlasia-time-wise. This is the natural process of our constitutional system.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

However what I will oppose 100% (at least for now) is a Constitutional Convention. The Fourth Constitution is working perfectly fine and is not a disaster like the First Constitution (or in more recent times, the First Constititution of Fremont). And Atlasia is not facing an existencial crisis like it faced in 2014-15. (I am not sure why the 2nd constitution was changed though, but I doubt the situation is comparable either)

IF you mean 2nd Constitution of Atlasia, it had flaws in its wording and structure even to do what it was designed to do if that makes sense. It had also been amended like 40 times IIRC in the space of two plus years.

After attempts at a massive overhaul failed in 2009 with the Third Con-Con, the Fourth Con-con convened in 2010 to write the third constitution with Purple State and Marokai Blue as the driving forces behind it. I think it started before PS became President though I cannot recall for sure and he barely finished before he left office. The Senate had to extend its mandate for instance.


PS Summarizing it:
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=126154.msg2685114#msg2685114

[Former President tack50]

However what I will oppose 100% (at least for now) is a Constitutional Convention. The Fourth Constitution is working perfectly fine and is not a disaster like the First Constitution (or in more recent times, the First Constititution of Fremont). And Atlasia is not facing an existencial crisis like it faced in 2014-15. (I am not sure why the 2nd constitution was changed though, but I doubt the situation is comparable either)

IF you mean 2nd Constitution of Atlasia, it had flaws in its wording and structure even to do what it was designed to do if that makes sense. It had also been amended like 40 times IIRC in the space of two plus years.

After attempts at a massive overhaul failed in 2009 with the Third Con-Con, the Fourth Con-con convened in 2010 to write the third constitution with Purple State and Marokai Blue as the driving forces behind it. I think it started before PS became President though I cannot recall for sure and he barely finished before he left office. The Senate had to extend its mandate for instance.


PS Summarizing it:
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=126154.msg2685114#msg2685114

Ok, so then we have 2 changes because the constitution was an arcane mess that not many were able to understand and 1 in a big game reform attempt during the game's darkest hour. Neither of which seem relatable to me today.

I will say that in terms of time, we are probably overdue for one, it seems to be a trend to have an overhaul of some sort every 5-6 years? (though 2nd to 3rd seems more about clarfication than actual impactful changes. Dropping FPTP districts seems like a more meaningful change to me for instance)

Therefore I do not think that a constitutional convention is a good thing for now. Atlasia is not in an existencial crisis and our constitution is an actually well written document. If you want to blame someone for not needing a ConCon right now, blame Truman and the others who were involved in writing the Fourth Constitution for writing a good document

[Stuart98]

How will the delegates to the convention be selected if it happens?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

How will the delegates to the convention be selected if it happens?

Congress would have to adopt rules for delegate selection, as we did in 2015. Back then there was a mix of regional, party, and congressional (senatorial) delegates.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

How will the delegates to the convention be selected if it happens?

Congress would have to adopt rules for delegate selection, as we did in 2015. Back then there was a mix of regional, party, and congressional (senatorial) delegates.

How would the composition of delegates be determined in a majority Labor congress?

[KaiserDave]

Yeah I don't think this is a good idea

[YE]

How will the delegates to the convention be selected if it happens?

Congress would have to adopt rules for delegate selection, as we did in 2015. Back then there was a mix of regional, party, and congressional (senatorial) delegates.

How would the composition of delegates be determined in a majority Labor congress?

Having an all Labor slate of delegates would be so unbelievably dumb and would really destroy the game. That’d be taking partisanship in the game (which I think is often good from an electoral prospective) way too far IMO.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

How will the delegates to the convention be selected if it happens?

Congress would have to adopt rules for delegate selection, as we did in 2015. Back then there was a mix of regional, party, and congressional (senatorial) delegates.

How would the composition of delegates be determined in a majority Labor congress?

Having an all Labor slate of delegates would be so unbelievably dumb and would really destroy the game. That’d be taking partisanship in the game (which I think is often good from an electoral prospective) way too far IMO.

Would Labor just make sure they control majorities on it instead?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

How will the delegates to the convention be selected if it happens?

Congress would have to adopt rules for delegate selection, as we did in 2015. Back then there was a mix of regional, party, and congressional (senatorial) delegates.

How would the composition of delegates be determined in a majority Labor congress?

I will be the sole appointed delegate and revise the constitution from my dungeon lair.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

How will the delegates to the convention be selected if it happens?

Congress would have to adopt rules for delegate selection, as we did in 2015. Back then there was a mix of regional, party, and congressional (senatorial) delegates.

How would the composition of delegates be determined in a majority Labor congress?

I will be the sole appointed delegate and revise the constitution from my dungeon lair.

I appreciate the honesty! 

[YE]

How will the delegates to the convention be selected if it happens?

Congress would have to adopt rules for delegate selection, as we did in 2015. Back then there was a mix of regional, party, and congressional (senatorial) delegates.

How would the composition of delegates be determined in a majority Labor congress?

Having an all Labor slate of delegates would be so unbelievably dumb and would really destroy the game. That’d be taking partisanship in the game (which I think is often good from an electoral prospective) way too far IMO.

Would Labor just make sure they control majorities on it instead?

Idk exactly but you get my general point.