Northern Regional Committee

[/]

Abstain

[/]

When it comes to the number of representatives we have and the type of regional governmental system we use, I recommend having as small a legislature as possible, as doing so would (a) increase competitiveness, (b) reduce legislative inactivity, and (c) expedite the legislation-passing process as a whole. I would personally prefer no more than seven or eight regional legislators, though I understand that some on this committee would probably prefer more than that and that's fine with me.

However, if we're really looking for an interesting electoral system, then I recommend developing districts! Having districts would increase the amount of political clout each individual Northern citizen would have due to his or her ability to influence the vote within his or her own district, and create a more personalized campaign system as opposed to the personal message-based one we have now.

I think the best system would probably be a bicameral system with a House and Senate (preferably with more creative names), with one being elected at-large and the other being elected using districts. We could have single-member districts, double-member districts, or half being elected with single-member districts and half being elected at-large like in the old Senate. I recommend around three, four, or five districts, with the legislature being able to redistrict every session to reflect population changes (that would also give the legislature something interesting to do ). Here are my proposed maps for each one along with the current populations of each state and province/territory (only the currently inhabited Canadian provinces are included for population distribution purposes):

Obviously, there would be debate regarding both district contiguity (which would be hard to do perfectly due to the positions of New York and Ohio) and differences in population between each district. I recommend developing contiguity rules that don't require perfect district contiguity but do to an extent, so, for example, we could have a district with New Jersey and Connecticut if New York's population needs to be included in a different district. Regarding population differences in each district, I recommend just developing a standard deviation criterion that can't be violated.

Overall, a district system would be good basically because it gives the legislature something to actually do and makes things relatively more interesting.

If we wanted to get really crazy, we could ask each Northern citizen to specify a county of residence and work from there. That would probably create hilarious levels of gerrymandering, but why not, eh?

[/]

can we really sustain a bicameral legislature?

I would prefer a unicameral one, but from what I've read in this thread so far it seems most wouldn't.

My ideal legislature would be a single six-member body with three being elected from single-member districts and three being elected at-large. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

[/]

Evergreen brings up a good point regarding the number of legislators; seven seems fine to me with either four regional and three at-large or three regional and four at-large. I would prefer the latter because districts are really hard to create when you only have fourteen areas to district with and the at-large elections would probably be more interesting with more seats. Or maybe they would be interesting with less seats, I don't really know.

Regarding RGN's idea, I agree that a larger region would probably require a larger total legislature, but we do have to consider that most regional legislatures were basically empty and unused before the merger. I still think a smaller/unicameral legislature size would be preferable, but I'd like to see what everyone has to say first. I also think a unicameral legislature would expedite the legislative process in a very significant manner, while a bicameral legislature would likely slow things down.

The legislative process would probably also be much more effective if we had, say, a Prime Minister in the legislature as opposed to a separate head of government. If you guys wanted, I suppose we could make some sort of nominal head of state position with no real governing power, preferably called "King" so we could have a "King in the North."

[/]

Evergreen brings up a good point regarding the number of legislators; seven seems fine to me with either four regional and three at-large or three regional and four at-large. I would prefer the latter because districts are really hard to create when you only have fourteen areas to district with and the at-large elections would probably be more interesting with more seats. Or maybe they would be interesting with less seats, I don't really know.

Regarding RGN's idea, I agree that a larger region would probably require a larger total legislature, but we do have to consider that most regional legislatures were basically empty and unused before the merger. I still think a smaller/unicameral legislature size would be preferable, but I'd like to see what everyone has to say first. I also think a unicameral legislature would expedite the legislative process in a very significant manner, while a bicameral legislature would likely slow things down.

The legislative process would probably also be much more effective if we had, say, a Prime Minister in the legislature as opposed to a separate head of government. If you guys wanted, I suppose we could make some sort of nominal head of state position with no real governing power, preferably called "King" so we could have a "King in the North."

I was thinking of a three man senate plus five man house of representatives. The bill will originate from the HoR then it will be voted. after that, it will go to the senate for debate and another approval before being sent to the governor's desk

That's a good idea too.

It kind of looks like we skipped the timeline of debate Truman made, though, so I think we should be talking about the Senate elections now.

Sorry Truman

[/]

I think the point Blair brings up is good. Considering the nature of the game, I'd say legislative expediency is probably more important than thorough review at this point.

I'd like to reiterate the suggestion of a unicameral seven-member legislature with either three regional and four at-large representatives or four regional and three-at large representatives. One member of the legislature would be elected among his peers as head of government, with a separate public election for nominal head of state also being held.

[/]

I think the point Blair brings up is good. Considering the nature of the game, I'd say legislative expediency is probably more important than thorough review at this point.

I'd like to reiterate the suggestion of a unicameral seven-member legislature with either three regional and four at-large representatives or four regional and three-at large representatives. One member of the legislature would be elected among his peers as head of government, with a separate public election for nominal head of state also being held.

Fast tracking legislations isn't good. although I'm not saying that is similar to the expediency of the legislation. This will ensure that a bill is worthy of passing if it was approved by both chambers. A three man senate and a five man HoR (or even three) will reduce the offices a little bit. If you're talking about seperating the powers of the current governor, the head of government will be picked by a joint session of the two chambers

Just looking at what we've seen over the past few years, I sincerely doubt legislative fast tracking will be too much of a problem. If we wanted to introduce a system of checks and balances (which I very much recommend), the head of state could have veto power over passed legislation, though the head of government would still be elected by the legislature.

I'd like to see what the rest of the committee thinks regarding a unicameral vs. bicameral system, but once more, I think Truman said we should get to discussing the Senate elections first.

[/]

I would recommend two separate IRV elections to determine our Senators, much like the other regions are doing.

[/]

^Right now, we're talking about elections for federal Senators, not regional ones.

But regardless, I think it's pretty much agreed at this point that unicameralism is probably the only way to go. I reiterate my idea of one legislature with three regional and four at-large representatives or four regional and three at-large representatives.

[/]

I have an amendment to cinyc's proposed bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, my amendment would change the existing bill so the special election is only for one Senator (who will face reelection in August). The other Senator will be appointed by our committee and will face election later this June. My reasons for the amendment:

- One of the Senators would have to be elected again this month regardless.
- The fairest way to choose our Senators is to do so in the same way in each region.
- It would be best to have our first Senate election using the same method that later Senate elections will be held using.

Thanks!

[/]

Unfriendly.  I don't think this unaccountable committee should be appointing members, no matter how short the term is.  Let the voters decide.  The other regions simply got this wrong.

Plus, I don't think it is clear that the June seat is the shorter one.  Poirot has made arguments that there is no date specified for a Senate election in the Atlasian constitution, and it's already June 1.

Given the shortness of time before the proposed election day, I move for an immediate vote on the amendment.

So with this amendment you'd be appointing someone to a 4 month term? That seems undemocratic to me - we specified in the South that the appointment would only be until another election was held later in June.

Of course not. That's clear in the text.

I vote Aye on the amendment.

[/]

lol

[/]

^You can't have an IRV voting system in which multiple candidates are elected. The South and West are using IRV specifically so they only elect one Senator and appoint the other one until later this month.

[/]

If we're holding the multiple elections next weekend, can we constitutionally specify that the person elected to the June seat will remain in office until October?  I don't think the Fourth Constitution requires another June election - it just says the election for the Senator has to be in June.  And this will be.

I agree with this.

[/]

I completely agree with Blair's sentiments.

[/]

I fully support cinyc's amendment.

According to the Constitution, Class I Senators are elected in February, June, and October, while Class II Senators are elected in April, August, and December.

[/]

As I emphasized earlier, it is impossible to have an STV election in which only one candidate wins. The proper voting system to use in this case would be the IRV system.

I suggest we move to a final vote once the bill is amended appropriately.

[/]

Evergreen's amendment seems about right. Truman, can we move to a final vote?

[/]

The Proportional Representation Act is presumably only used when the point of an election is to achieve "proportional representation." The concept of proportional representation is wholly irrelevant when there is only one winner in a given election.

I sincerely doubt that the STV voting system has been used in all Northeastern elections, as elections in which there is only one winner (Governor, Regional Senator, etc.) cannot by definition be conducted using STV.

IRV, on the other hand, is the ranked voting system used when only one candidate can win in a given election. I'm not under the impression that terms must be defined by federal law for us to use them, as long as said terms have very clear common definitions. I fail to understand how using the correct voting system "adds confusion" to the process of counting the votes.

I hate to go on a diatribe here, but if the point of this bill is to choose the electoral system under which our Senators are elected, we should use the correct voting system. Thanks!

[/]

Elections in which only one candidate can win simply cannot be held using the STV system. I'm sorry if people are under the impression that the Northeast should have been using STV for past elections, but we might as well start using the correct system sooner than later.

I appreciate your having explained your version of calculating single-winner election results using STV, but that doesn't make the use of STV in single-winner elections acceptable. The purpose of the new Constitution is to fix errors in the old system and improve upon the existing one; I see no reason for us to continue to use an electoral system that by definition does not work in single-winner elections if we have the opportunity to "introduce" the correct one.

I really do doubt that most Northerners have some sort of unwavering desire to use an incorrect voting system just because it's apparently been used in the past. The IRV system is in no way "undefined" and cannot possibly be "confusing"; the rules to calculating the votes under IRV are very clear and very simple, and there are no variations of the system to be disputed.

Frankly, even if you are the one calculating the votes in this election, we should be basing the system we use to count the votes off of which system is the most accurate rather than the one you prefer to use. There is no lack of clarity or definition when using the IRV system as opposed to the false version of STV we’ve apparently been using in past elections; if we have been using the wrong system for all these years then there's no better time than now to change it.

Using IRV in our single-member elections will require no change in policy or legislation whatsoever; the government does not need to define a term in order for us to use it.

[/]

Here's a short summary of how the votes are counted (instantrunoff.com):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you can see, the IRV system is almost exactly the same as the STV system, with the only major difference being that the IRV system is used in elections with one winner while the STV system is used in elections with multiple winners (thus, our differences are largely semantic). Here is an automatic vote calculator:

http://paul-lockett.co.uk/av.html

Note that Mr. Lockett mentions that the IRV system is "also known as instant run-off voting or the single transferable vote for single member constituencies." The further explanation reads that "STV used for multi-winner elections is sometimes called proportional representation through the single transferable vote, or PR-STV," wherein our problem lies.

Hope that helps!

[/]

As Truman has clarified that we can use an electoral system of our choosing and evergreen has clarified Section 4 of the bill, can we move to a final vote? We really should get going. Here is my recommended final version, which is the same as evergreen's with the only modification being in Section 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/]

Aye

[/]

Now that it seems the Senate business is taken care of, I suppose we should start discussing the structure of the regional government.

I propose a single seven-member legislature with three members elected at-large and four members elected using districts. The districts would be drawn up and voted on by the legislature at the beginning of each session, with each district having to fit within a certain population range (we could predetermine a maximum standard deviation and put it in the Constitution) in order to keep things fair. We would also, of course, have some sort of regional executive, though this executive would hopefully have the power to introduce bills into the legislature and participate in debate (without a vote) in order to maximize collaboration.

Thoughts?

[/]

^Five members seems fine as well; I'm not sure what everyone else thinks though.

If we do go with five, I suppose we would either have three at large and two districts or two at large and three districts. I have no specific preferences when it comes to that, but I've been able to create around-even maps with two and three districts so either would be fine.

I would assume we conduct all votes at the same time (doing them one by one would take a really long time), but I'd have to ask Truman first.