End to Districts Amendment [Passed/Sent to Regions]

[Sam Spade]

End to Districts Amendment

That the following changes shall be made to the Atlasian Constitution.
1. Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:
The Senate shall be composed of ten Senators, each with a term of four months.

2. Article I, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:
No Person shall be a Senator who has not attained a hundred or more posts and, in the case of Regional Senators, is not a registered voter in the Region that they represent.

3. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:
The Senate shall be divided into two classes: Class A, which shall comprise the Senators elected from the Regions, and Class B.

4. Article IV, Section 4 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be repealed.

(Sponsor: Ebowed)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

So, I'm confused.  This bill seems to eliminate districts, but what does it replace them with?

[Verily]

It's intended to work in tandem with the PR-STV bill and shouldn't be passed until that one is. Since Districts are in the Constitution, an Amendment, separate from the PR-STV bill, is needed to get rid of them.

[King]

I don't like 10 regional senators because it means like 30 Northeasterners get represented by 2 Senators and like 10 Midwesterners get represented by 2 Senators.

[12th Doctor]

*Sigh*

I would just like to comment as a perosn who has had expirience in these matters and as the one who came up with the regions/districts method.

The whole point of doing it liek this was to assure that we had Senators who were responsive both to small regional interests, and to population (like the real Congress, but unicameral).  Also, it assures a higher level of political variability.  You can't keep changing the Constitution ever time it suits you, less it becomes meaningless, as it did for me when I was involved.

This is not to mention that, against my advice, they already got rid of the current system once, but ended up going back to it, as they found it was the best way to go.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

*Sigh*

I would just like to comment as a perosn who has had expirience in these matters and as the one who came up with the regions/districts method.

The whole point of doing it liek this was to assure that we had Senators who were responsive both to small regional interests, and to population (like the real Congress, but unicameral).  Also, it assures a higher level of political variability.  You can't keep changing the Constitution ever time it suits you, less it becomes meaningless, as it did for me when I was involved.

This is not to mention that, against my advice, they already got rid of the current system once, but ended up going back to it, as they found it was the best way to go.

I think that the idea is for the five single member districts to be replaced with one multi-member district elected by STV.
At least I hope so; ten regional senators is a ghastly prospect.

[Јas]

So, I'm confused.  This bill seems to eliminate districts, but what does it replace them with?

The bill which seeks to institute PR-STV requires a constitutional amendment before it can be fully implemented.

The districts would be replaced by that system which treats the whole of Atlasia as a single electoral constitutency.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How clear is the constitution on the districts issue?

[minionofmidas]

So the idea is that the Senate has full freedom to change the rules under which Class B Senators are elected, making it possible to drop proportional representation again without needing yet another amendment?
Very good. I've always believed that a Constitution should only include the barest corset of rules for elections and that most of that belongs into ordinary law. Is there any support for amending this so that the regional Senators could also be abolished - at a later date, if the Senate so wishes. Say, if STV works so well that we decide we want it for the whole Senate - without further constitutional amendment?

[Јas]

So the idea is that the Senate has full freedom to change the rules under which Class B Senators are elected, making it possible to drop proportional representation again without needing yet another amendment?

Correct

How clear is the constitution on the districts issue?

The 2 main parts in this regard are:
Art I, s.1, cl.1 mandates the election of 5 Senators from the regions and 5 from the districts.
Art IV, s.4 sets out the re-districting process.

[Peter]

3. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Atlasian Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:
The Senate shall be divided into two classes: Class A, which shall comprise the Senators elected from the Regions, and Class B.

Whilst I am not a member of this chamber, I would posit that this section is not as explicit as it could be: I would add a little on the end.

"..., which shall be elected as the Senate shall specify in appropriate legislation."

[minionofmidas]

(in continuation of the debate in the pr bill thread)

How about this, Earl and Modrate?

Section 3 amended to read (...) and Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected by a form of proportional representation.

It's a very bad idea to put the entire pr mechanism into the constitution - we might decide we want some points changed, without exactly overhauling the entire system. This would give some guarantee that a major change back could not be passed by 7 people.
Peter's version, of course, would be a reasonable friendly amendment.

I'm not introducing either just yet... let's have a little more feedback here.

[Јas]

I understand Moderate and Earl's point and I agree with Lewis that this is the appropriate venue for that discussion.

On that matter, I would have no difficulty with either Peter's or Lewis's possible amendments or indeed one which is very specific in stating something such as:
"...Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected via proportional representation by means of single transferable vote."

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I understand Moderate and Earl's point and I agree with Lewis that this is the appropriate venue for that discussion.

On that matter, I would have no difficulty with either Peter's or Lewis's possible amendments or indeed one which is very specific in stating something such as:
"...Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected via proportional representation by means of single transferable vote."

I'd be fine with that new wording.  I don't think the absolute specifics need to be in the constitution, but if the ultimate goal is to change to a PR-STV system, let's lock that in.

[Јas]

I understand Moderate and Earl's point and I agree with Lewis that this is the appropriate venue for that discussion.

On that matter, I would have no difficulty with either Peter's or Lewis's possible amendments or indeed one which is very specific in stating something such as:
"...Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected via proportional representation by means of single transferable vote."

I'd be fine with that new wording.  I don't think the absolute specifics need to be in the constitution, but if the ultimate goal is to change to a PR-STV system, let's lock that in.

In which case, someone had better put forward an amendment.

[minionofmidas]

I prefer my own, but am ready to introduce both of them:

Introducing, firstly, an amendment that Section 3 be amended to read (...) and Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected by a form of proportional representation.

Secondly, (irrespective of how the first vote goes) an amendment that Section 3 be amended to read "...Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected via proportional representation by means of single transferable vote."

Thirdly, and only if both previous amendments fail, an amendment (which may be recognized as a friendly amendment) that Section 3 be amended to read

...Class B, which shall be elected as the Senate shall specify in appropriate legislation."

[Sam Spade]

We are now voting on the following amendment:

Introducing, firstly, an amendment that Section 3 be amended to read (...) and Class B, which shall comprise Senators elected by a form of proportional representation.

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Nay.  I would vote for Peter's original amendment

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm not sure why we need to vote on this amendment first when the second amendment will wipe out its wording, but...

Aye.

[Hatman 🍁]

Aye

[Јas]

I'm not sure why we need to vote on this amendment first when the second amendment will wipe out its wording

Only if the second amendment passes. Lewis is giving the Senate an opportunity to pick it's preferred wording.

[Ebowed]

Aye

[Brandon H]

Nay

[minionofmidas]

Aye

[Јas]

Tally on Lewis's Amendment
Aye: 4 (Moderate [NE]; Earl; Ebowed; Lewis)
Nay: 2 (Sam; Brandon)
Yet to Vote: 3 (afleitch; Al; Moderate [D2]; Rob)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

On behalf of District 2, aye.