SENATE BILL: Equal Representation Amendment (Tabled)

[ilikeverin]

Districts, in my opinion, would not benefit the game and potentially lead to partisan gerrymanders.  I will oppose this bill.

Of course they might.  That was half the fun of them. (Am I pretty much the only currently active forumnite who actually participated in redistricting?  I think I might be the only Senator.  Oh dear )  How is the current regional setup any less of a "gerrymander"?  Just because it looks pretty doesn't mean it, say, doesn't pack a lot of Liberals into one region.  Furthermore, if we so desired, we could craft legislation that would attempt to cut down on gerrymandering.

As I stated in the title of this amendment, this is about one thing: fairness.  In fact, Senator Scott, coming from the great Northeastern Region, I would think you would care the most about this idea.  You represent 43 Atlasians in the Senate.  I represent just 22.  Why is it fair that the voice of Midwesterners is heard proportionately more than the voice of Northeasterners?  We are a wonderful people, graced by Dave by the most delightful of regional cultures.  But does that give us the right to dictate more of Atlasian policy than the region that has all the people?  No, it does not.  This amendment would fix that.

[ilikeverin]

The current regional setup is fine the way it is because citizens may simply leave the region if it doesn't suit them.  ...
Now, I don't know how many times I have to say this:
The Northeast Region does not need to be changed.

The Northeast is politically diverse, has an ideal population, and is inhabited by active citizens.  There is no need to divide us, and I fully intend to keep my campaign promise of not supporting anything that alters our region's borders.

This amendment has nothing to do with the boundaries of the Regions

...and I'm not sure why you kept saying this repeatedly.  Districts would not supersede Regions in any way, shape, or form.  This has to do with Senatorial representation, nothing more.

I'm glad to see consensus against tis bill...despite how much I genuinely like its sponsor! :-)

*hughughug*

As to the esteemed Senators' objections about gerrymandering, I would like to ask them to please find examples of partisan gerrymandering during the redistricting process.  In fact, as someone who helped lead the charge to abolish districts in the first place, I can tell you with some certainty that gerrymandering was not a primary reason for the abolition of districts at all - in fact, the Senators objecting to the idea that districts wouldn't resemble Regional boundaries might be interested to know that one of the primary objections I gave to districts was that they almost exactly matched regional boundaries every single redistricting

[ilikeverin]

Now, just to clarify - This bill would do nothing to the regions, only change up the boundaries for Senate elections?

Precisely.  It is certainly not my desire to tamper with Regional borders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, there was never any confusion at voting time; district maps were generally included in voting booths, so people knew where they were voting in.

Districts were previously abolished under the 23rd Amendment to the Second Constitution.  The 23rd Amendment was largely the work of the esteemed Jas, one of the foremost Midwestern statesmen.  The abolition of districts was first proposed under the End to Districts Amendment, but it failed to be ratified in the Pacific and Southeast; its second iteration passed all regions but the Southeast.

Two good threads debating its merits are this one, where the esteemed Jas first proposed the measure, and the tracking thread for first iteration.  As you can see, the proposal to abolish districts themselves had little to do with the merits of districts per se but had more to do with the concurrent proposal of at-large proportional representation.  (Interestingly, a good deal of the opposition came from those like bgwah who were devoted regionalists and saw the abolition of districts as an anti-Region proposal.)

Given how young this Senate is, I encourage its members to check out at least one redistricting thread to see how they worked.

Essentially, this amendment does change the boundaries of the regions because it splits how the citizens are represented.  Senators are accustomed to representing their entire regions, not select portions of it.  By mandating that a region divides itself for representation purposes, we would be infringing on regions' rights.

Well, 5 members of our body are accustomed to representing the entire nation, not just one Region   I have no idea how this is an "infringement on regions' rights", however; this ensures all regions are treated equally.  Or, if it is, why is it more important for regions to have a right to be represented by a single Senate member than it is for citizens to be given equal representation by elected officials?

I'm not a fan of messing with those regional seats at all. If anything, I'd rather change the at-large seats back to district seats. I always felt this was the best way to go with representation.

Why?  I like at-large seats.  It makes sure activity isn't confined to any one area of the country but is spread evenly.  (Imagine how dead the Pacific/Midwest stuff would be if we didn't have at-large Presidential races and Senate seats )  I mean, I think even better than this proposal would be for Regional seats to be replaced by at-large seats.  But I don't think that's realistic.  This Amendment would ensure we have members of the Senate representing certain parts of the country without skewing the composition of the Senate.

In fact, with At-Large seats (like your Midwest bro Jas tried to use the last time to uphend regional seats) and maybe even with this districting idea, the ones most adversely effected could be the Midwest because of their low population and low activity levels, which could leave them without any Senators. Yet these ideas always seem to be sponsored by Midwesterners. Sacrifice is so noble.

  I think it is certainly the case that, no matter what motives you ascribe to my pushing for this idea, self-interest is not one of them.  It's interesting that the Midwest has always been one of the most anti-regionalist regions despite having (imo) one of the most distinctive regional personalities.  But we have been.

I'm glad that at-large seats are doing at least some of the heavy lifting in making sure we have people represented equally, but I think we can do better.  If we go by active members, it's hard to imagine the Pacific and Midwest meriting so many members

[ilikeverin]

Nope

Essentially, this amendment does change the boundaries of the regions because it splits how the citizens are represented.  Senators are accustomed to representing their entire regions, not select portions of it.  By mandating that a region divides itself for representation purposes, we would be infringing on regions' rights.

Well, 5 members of our body are accustomed to representing the entire nation, not just one Region   I have no idea how this is an "infringement on regions' rights", however; this ensures all regions are treated equally.  Or, if it is, why is it more important for regions to have a right to be represented by a single Senate member than it is for citizens to be given equal representation by elected officials?

Because we can't support a bicameral legislature, so we are essentially doing the work of both, within the same body.

But it's manifestly the case that the Senate in the book series "Real Life" is unfairly skewed towards smaller states; I don't see why our similarity to that book series should be considered a good thing in this respect.

[ilikeverin]

That is the whole idea behind the RL US Senate though. I frankly don't see the problem with it. The problem with the Senate is the people in it, which is true for the US House, Governorships, State Legislatures and a slew of other offices. A problem Atlasia doesn't share with the RL US. I think Franklin and Madison were right when they come up with that structure in 1787, to balance the forces of institution against popular will. Even post 17th Amendment, this notion is still in place. If anything, the 17th Amendment has strengthened it because now the Senators represent the state rather than a gov't institution within that state.

Somehow, I get the picture you reject such Burkean logic? Just call it a hunch.

Well, yeah; I think it's entirely unfair that a Wyomingite be valued, in the eyes of the US Constitution, at 66.3 times the worth of a Californian.  But perhaps that's just me

(I mean, there are lots of other problems with the Senate, of course, not in the least the present supermajority requirement for passage.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At the moment, it doesn't seem like it would be a fair fight!

[ilikeverin]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

[ilikeverin]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

I listened, I just disagreed.

It was a clever tactical move, but the whole problem is that most of it concerned arguements made back when the Class b seats were switched from Districts to At-Large.

What would have been more effective would be to discuss why the class a seats were switched from regional seats to districts back in the 2nd Senate and then reversed in the 7th (or was it the 8th?).

They were?  I don't even recall that.

Ah, apparently that had to do with the successive adoptions of the First and Second Constitutions.

Well, this summer, I do have a bit more time on my hands, perhaps I could be a historian

EDIT: Unfortunately, the second ConCon was held off-board on a site that has since died, so...

[ilikeverin]

A blow against equality in Atlasia.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed the debate, at least, NC Yankee   I liked writing up my history lesson, even if no one listened.

It's not equality. Equality would be abolition of regions electing representatives in Federal government.

Well, of course!  But no one would support that.  Except for you and me, apparently.

EDIT: Wait a sec, actually, now that I read what you actually said (I at first read it as just "abolishing regions"), that's exactly what I was proposing...