Northern Regional Committee

[/]

I second cinyc's proposal for "the North" as the name of our region.

Regarding the system of government, I would assume we should just stick with "an executive and legislative branch" or something like that, as it seems Truman has clarified the judicial branch is regulated by the federal government.

[/]

Perhaps some sort of combined long name that can casually be referred to as either? I recall someone else suggesting "the Northern Union of Franklin."

[/]

^In a period of relative inactivity, I wouldn't want one or two people to be making all the decisions.

I stand by the half at-large/half districted unicameral legislature plan.

[/]

I do hope this Committee sticks with Franklin.  Anything other than just "The North."  Come on, guys...

I believe naming the region anything other than a neutral, descriptive term like North will lead to interminable fights on renaming the region something else year after year, and lead to the idiotic renaming of individual states, like in the old Midwest.  I don't want to start down that road.

^

[/]

^In a period of relative inactivity, I wouldn't want one or two people to be making all the decisions.

I stand by the half at-large/half districted unicameral legislature plan.

This will ensures a better representation. Seconded

I'm worried that one party will capture all the seats if we only have 2 at-large and 3 district (or even 3 AL and 2 district) reps, though.  The fewer at-large or one-person seats we have, the more likely that is to happen.

I thought you only wanted five seats in the legislature?

[/]

^In a period of relative inactivity, I wouldn't want one or two people to be making all the decisions.

I stand by the half at-large/half districted unicameral legislature plan.

This will ensures a better representation. Seconded

I'm worried that one party will capture all the seats if we only have 2 at-large and 3 district (or even 3 AL and 2 district) reps, though.  The fewer at-large or one-person seats we have, the more likely that is to happen.

I thought you only wanted five seats in the legislature?

I do.  But I'm concerned that the more we split seats, the more likely it is that whatever is the largest party in the region will win all the seats.  That's why I'm on the fence about the district thing.

I'd still prefer seven total legislators, which would largely solve your problem if you'd be willing to support that plan. Even if not, though, the way the STV system works essentially prevents one party from winning all of the seats in a contested election, so at least one of the at-large representatives should be from the minority party (at least two if we have four at-large and three districts).

[/]

What about the compromise name that Kingpoleon introduced?

[/]

OFFICIAL BALLOT

Question 1: What should be the official name of the northern Region?
[   ] The Commonwealth of Franklin
[1] The North
[2] The Northern Union of Franklin
[   ] Write-in:
Question 2: What should be the system of government for the northern Region?
[1] Executive and Legislature
[   ] Write-in:

[/]

IRV calculation of the regional name vote (the North has won ):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/]

i support an official nickname, but that should be a statutory matter to be decided after the constitution is ratified.

[/]

Does my vote change the outcome?

Seems ashame considering other regions have decent names whilst we're just the North

Even if your vote was counted, "the North" would still win, as it got three first preferences and the second preference of evergreen, whose first preference was eliminated in the first round. Here's the math with all seven votes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/]

I think a unicameral legislature of five or seven members would be the ideal option, preferably with around half elected at-large and the other half elected using districts.

As I stated in my earlier proposal, the best way to ensure that the districts are approximately equal in size is to develop a maximum standard deviation of residents per district that cannot be surpassed (1.75 is my best guess). This would prevent districts of substantially uneven sizes from being created. The first map would be developed and voted on by this committee, while all future maps would be developed at the beginning of each session of the legislature for use in the next election.

[/]

I think one month terms would be a bit too short, tbh. This is my proposed election calendar (with President, House, and Senate election dates already filled in):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As you can see, the terms for the Governor, at-large legislators, and regional legislators would each last two months, with the regional legislators being elected on the same schedule as the federal elections and the governor and at-large legislators being elected in non-federal election months.

Having elections every month would increase both activity and excitement, and also allow candidates who lose one election to only have to wait one month before being able to try again.

My only recommendation, of course, is that we change "Governor of the North" to "King in the North"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[/]

So, if I'm correct, these are the proposals currently on the floor:


• 5 Seats, elected at-large
• 5 Seats, 3 from districts and 2 at-large
• 7 Seats, 4 from districts and 3 at-large

If there are no more proposals, I will call a principle vote tomorrow evening. There will also be a principle vote on whether or not to index the number of seats to activity at that time.

May I ask who made the first and third proposals? I think a bit more debate before the principal vote would be good to help make any additional arguments for and against each of them.

I'm also not quite sure how we could vote on whether or not to index the number of seats if we've already decided how many seats there will be...

Thanks!

[/]

So, if I'm correct, these are the proposals currently on the floor:


• 5 Seats, elected at-large
• 5 Seats, 3 from districts and 2 at-large
• 7 Seats, 4 from districts and 3 at-large

If there are no more proposals, I will call a principle vote tomorrow evening. There will also be a principle vote on whether or not to index the number of seats to activity at that time.

I think someone proposed bicameralism, and if we're going down the seats by district road, I'd like to propose 5 seats, 2 from districts and 3 at large.

Just considering the shape of our map, three or more districts is much easier to draw than two (regardless of population fluctuations), but whatever floats your boat...

I recommend holding the first principle vote to determine whether the legislature is all at-large, all districted, or a combination of both. The second vote should be whether to index the number of seats based off of activity, and the third should be to determine the number of seats and how they will be indexed if necessary.

[/]

So, if I'm correct, these are the proposals currently on the floor:


• 5 Seats, elected at-large
• 5 Seats, 3 from districts and 2 at-large
• 7 Seats, 4 from districts and 3 at-large

If there are no more proposals, I will call a principle vote tomorrow evening. There will also be a principle vote on whether or not to index the number of seats to activity at that time.

May I ask who made the first and third proposals? I think a bit more debate before the principal vote would be good to help make any additional arguments for and against each of them.

I'm also not quite sure how we could vote on whether or not to index the number of seats if we've already decided how many seats there will be...

Thanks!

i propose a mixed-member system with three members elected in first-past-the-post districts and additional members added as needed to make the assembly roughly proportional

example:

district 1: lab candidate 5, fed candidate 4
district 2: lab candidate 6, fed candidate 4
district 3: lab candidate 5, fed candidate 4

would end up with three directly-elected labor representatives and two additional federalist representatives

Yes, but there would be no way to determine which Federalists actually win the two additional seats under this system.

To address cinyc's concerns, having three districted seats and two at-large ones would in no way guarantee a Labor supermajority. Labor votes are much more spread out than one would initially think; I looked back at the three-district plan I proposed earlier and Labor doesn't have a majority in even one of the three districts (Labor controls exactly 50% of the votes in two of the districts and 47% in the other one). Considering that using STV to elect two candidates basically guarantees one seat for Labor and one for the Federalists, it's literally just as likely that we end up with a 4-1 Federalist legislature as it is that we end up with a 4-1 Labor legislature.

I second Kingpoleon's proposal and move for an immediate vote for the three district/two at-large plan. We really should get moving.

[/]

As a general principle, it's probably best that we try to keep the Assembly system as simple as possible.

Speaking as a private citizen, I'd rather that all five members are elected via proportional representation in a unicameral legislature.  If we need to have districts, then at the very least we should limit how often a person can change from state to state.  Drawing competitive districts can be enough of a hassle; we wouldn't want people flowing in and out of districts just to grab seats for a certain party.

I would agree with the proposal to limit the number of times one can move from state to state. We could also insert a provision stating each citizen must vote in the district they were in when the current districts were drawn (with people moving from other regions being able to vote in whatever district they moved to, of course).

Drawing fair districts would in no way be a hassle; the ones I created took about five minutes each and, as shown, none of them contain an electorate that has a majority identifying with a single party. Drawing districts really wouldn't cause any trouble; it would rather simply add excitement to the game and give something interesting for the legislature to do. It's healthy to have an electoral system that's different from the one used by the federal government, but at the same time still very simple and easily manageable.

[/]

Question 1: What form should the North's legislature take:
[5] 5 seats; elected at-large
[1] 5 seats; 2 at-large and 3 regional
[3] 5 seats; 3 at-large and 2 regional
[4] 5 seats; mixed-member system with 3 First Past the Post and 2 proportional
[2] 7 seats; 4 at-large and 3 regional

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ ] Yes
[X] No

[/]

Nay

[/]

Aye