SB:119-25: Double Majority Amendment--Failed

[Chicken Is Meant To Be Boneless]

Double Majority Amendment

Be It Resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled, that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the Regions, the Fifth Constitution of Atlasia shall be amended as follows:

Article IX, Section 1 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be amended as follows:

Section 1. Amendment.

The Senate, whenever two thirds of its membership shall deem it necessary, shall have power to propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall take effect following their ratification by two thirds of the several Regions, provided a majority of the voters nationwide also approve the Amendment.

Amendment Explanation

This amendment requires that a majority of the popular vote also agree to a constitutional amendment instead of merely a majority of the popular vote in two Regions.

The senator from Missouri is recognized.

[reagente]

Reworded this amendment slightly compared to the last edition for clarity. It should be common sense that Amendments to the Constitution cannot pass without majority support nationwide.

[Pyro]

As I stated when this was originally introduced...

The current process to enact a Constitutional amendment is sufficient in ensuring the population of Atlasia approves. I see no reason to add complexity when the process as-is works just fine.

[fhtagn]

As I stated when this was originally introduced...

The current process to enact a Constitutional amendment is sufficient in ensuring the population of Atlasia approves. I see no reason to add complexity when the process as-is works just fine.

The current process allows us to have an amendment ratified that failed in the nationwide popular vote 65-35 but only passed because it got a 2 vote majority in a region where there were only 8 valid votes.

How can it reasonably be argued that the current process works just fine?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I could support requiring a certain % of each region, say, 30 or 40%, to turn out for the vote to be valid. But the idea being presented here would just reward further zombification of the game, in my view.

[Pyro]

Motion for a final vote.

[fhtagn]

Motion for a final vote.

Pure laziness.

[Pyro]

Motion for a final vote.

Pure laziness.

There's been no debate on this for 3 days - What would you prefer?
I've already made my own stance on this clear.

[fhtagn]

Motion for a final vote.

Pure laziness.

There's been no debate on this for 3 days - What would you prefer?
I've already made my own stance on this clear.

Actually answering questions when they've been asked instead of dodging.

[Pyro]

Motion for a final vote.

Pure laziness.

There's been no debate on this for 3 days - What would you prefer?
I've already made my own stance on this clear.

Actually answering questions when they've been asked instead of dodging.

I oppose this change to the Constitution as the present system allows for an equal voice among citizens of the three regions. As argued by Senator WB, and in the previous debate by Senator LT, the text as-is would only incentivize the packing of zombies into a single region and further deteriorate the game. Turnout is a valid concern, and one we could address as a precondition to allow an amendment to pass, but passing this will do nothing to remedy that.

[fhtagn]

Motion for a final vote.

Pure laziness.

There's been no debate on this for 3 days - What would you prefer?
I've already made my own stance on this clear.

Actually answering questions when they've been asked instead of dodging.

I oppose this change to the Constitution as the present system allows for an equal voice among citizens of the three regions. As argued by Senator WB, and in the previous debate by Senator LT, the text as-is would only incentivize the packing of zombies into a single region and further deteriorate the game. Turnout is a valid concern, and one we could address as a precondition to allow an amendment to pass, but passing this will do nothing to remedy that.

You still didn't answer my question

The current process allows us to have an amendment ratified that failed in the nationwide popular vote 65-35 but only passed because it got a 2 vote majority in a region where there were only 8 valid votes.

How can it reasonably be argued that the current process works just fine?

Nothing about the current system allows for an equal voice among citizens of the three regions when it allows a 2 vote majority among 8 valid votes in a region to cause a Constitutional Amendment to pass.

The current system arguably does more to incentivize zombies and has proven to be more abusive.

It's also worth noting this argument that you're clearly ignoring, probably because it proves your argument invalid.

We shouldn't be incentivizing the packing of zombies into one region. In fact, we should do the opposite.

This amendment doesn't do that.

Current Rules: 2/3 regions pass the amendment
This amendment: 2/3 regions pass the amendment, AND it has a majority of the NPV.

Under neither set of rules is packing everyone you support into one region conducive to achieving policy.

[fhtagn]

Even if the Senators pretending they actually care about parties packing people into a single region is a threat, take a look at the last posted census:

Atlasia Census
December 7, 2023

	DA	Fed	Lab	Lib	NKT	Pax	SNP	Ind	Oth	Total
Lincoln	11 (---)	8 (---)	15 (---)	4 (---)	2 (---)	13 (---)	1 (---)	6 (---)	0 (---)	60 (---)
South	0 (---)	10 (---)	2 (---)	0 (---)	0 (---)	7 (---)	41 (---)	2 (▲1)	0 (---)	62 (▲1)
Fremont	2 (▲1)	5 (---)	6 (---)	0 (---)	1 (---)	15 (▲1)	0 (---)	6 (---)	5 (▼2)	40 (---)
Total	13 (▲1)	23 (---)	23 (---)	4 (---)	3 (---)	35 (▲1)	42 (---)	14 (▲1)	5 (▼2)	162 (▲1)

	DA	Fed	Lab	Lib	NKT	Pax	SNP	Ind	Oth	Total
Northeast	4 (---)	2 (---)	8 (---)	4 (---)	2 (---)	13 (---)	0 (---)	3 (---)	0 (---)	36 (---)
Great Lakes	7 (---)	6 (---)	7 (---)	0 (---)	0 (---)	0 (---)	1 (---)	3 (---)	0 (---)	24 (---)
Upper South	0 (---)	6 (---)	0 (---)	0 (---)	0 (---)	4 (---)	24 (---)	1 (---)	0 (---)	35 (---)
Deep South	0 (---)	4 (---)	2 (---)	0 (---)	0 (---)	3 (---)	17 (---)	1 (▲1)	0 (---)	27 (▲1)
Mountain West	2 (▲1)	4 (---)	1 (---)	0 (---)	1 (---)	8 (▲1)	0 (---)	4 (---)	2 (▼2)	22 (---)
Pacific	0 (---)	1 (---)	5 (---)	0 (---)	0 (---)	7 (---)	0 (---)	2 (---)	3 (---)	18 (---)
Total	13 (▲1)	23 (---)	23 (---)	4 (---)	3 (---)	35 (▲1)	42 (---)	14 (▲1)	5 (▼2)	162 (▲1)

Out of 162 people registered in the game, the SNP only had 42 voters. It's clear that isn't enough to stop a Constitutional Amendment if it's truly something Atlasians in all the regions wanted.

At what point will you guys admit you're just wrong on the issue?

[Pyro]

With no objection to the motion, a final vote is now open on this legislation.

Double Majority Amendment

Be It Resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled, that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the Regions, the Fifth Constitution of Atlasia shall be amended as follows:

Article IX, Section 1 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be amended as follows:

Section 1. Amendment.

The Senate, whenever two thirds of its membership shall deem it necessary, shall have power to propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall take effect following their ratification by two thirds of the several Regions, provided a majority of the voters nationwide also approve the Amendment.

Amendment Explanation

This amendment requires that a majority of the popular vote also agree to a constitutional amendment instead of merely a majority of the popular vote in two Regions.

Nay

[fhtagn]

Aye

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Nay for the reasons I stated during debate

[Chicken Is Meant To Be Boneless]

Nay

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Aye

[reagente]

Aye

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

aye

[Jay 🏳️‍⚧️]

Nay

[Coastal Elitist]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay

[Adam Griffin]

Nay

[nerd73]

Nay

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Aye