*CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION* (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 24, 2024, 07:16:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  *CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION* (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: *CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION*  (Read 17454 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,092


« on: March 01, 2004, 06:09:40 PM »

Might I make a suggestion to have the Convention over AIM, MSN, or YIM.  It would make talking easier, and we could post the transcripts on the forum for all to read.
It would also allow us to have a sort of parlimentary procedure going, so no person can just say something without having the approval of the President of the Convention.

Just an idea...

AIM or MSN would be fine. I don't have YIM right now. Most people probably have AIM.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,092


« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2004, 11:00:31 PM »
« Edited: March 07, 2004, 11:17:08 PM by Beet »

I like this (Hughento's) regions too, it makes intuitive sense. However, the regions are a little bit more even in supersoulty's plan.

Hughento's plan:

Northeast 96
South 119
Midwest 130
Plains 84
West 109

Supersoulty's plan:

Northeast 104
Southeast 124
Midwest 113
South central 97
West 100
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,092


« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2004, 01:17:21 AM »

The one problem with a five region plan is that whoever wins three regions wins the election. Period.

A six-region plan (which I believe somebody proposed) would allow for a more competitive election night. Both candidates could win three regions, and the election might be a little closer.

Must we choose the Pres. by regions? I thought that was for senators and the Pres. can still be chosen by popular vote.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,092


« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2004, 01:19:17 AM »

There is still reason to balance out the regions by EVs, just to make it more realistic. But yeah it would be kind of unfair and lead to a lot of region-switching if we chose the president that way.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,092


« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2004, 06:04:52 PM »
« Edited: March 08, 2004, 06:08:48 PM by Beet »

The convention seems to be quite stagnant now. Therefore, to push it along, I think that the following issues should be addressed forthwith:

1. The unicameral or bicameral nature of the legislature.
2. The systems used in the various elections, and also the constituencies for the same.

Thereafter the specifics may be considered.

1. If there is a bicameral legislature I propose that it would be unrealistic to have elections for the lower House, for with 40 seats up for grabs, we don't have enough people to make it competitive.

In the future, we can make it competitive. But when the founding fathers first started the House in real life, the number of seats was not fixed; and so, in our simulation, all registered voters should automatically be considered House members. This of course is kind of like a unicameral legislature, but we dont have enough people to do it otherwise. Otherwise we can just have a unicameral legislature. Of course there will be a minimum number of posts requirement as with voting; this should be raised from 18. If we can trust people to vote, we should be able to trust them to be house members also.

2. Whether we use EVs or popular vote, remember that under a plurality voting system, party A candidate recieved 40%, party B candidate 30% and party C candidate 30%, party A candidate wins, even if party B and C candidates are very similiar to one another. We already have a similiar situation developing in the forum with the Progressive and Democratic parties being similiar. The last election was quite competitive and we should continue to try and achieve competitive (and therefore FUN) elections. Punishing a diversity of viewpoints/parties through a plurality system does not accomplish this.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,092


« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2004, 07:32:39 PM »
« Edited: March 08, 2004, 07:34:58 PM by Beet »

Just remember that if supporters of one candidate have a disproportionate majority in one region, they may be incentivized to change their region for the purposes of voting. A smaller party would be incentivized to have its members congregate in a single region, would could easily result in EVs won by more than two parties and no electoral majority.

So we should have a fair system of determining what happens in the case of no electoral majority.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,092


« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2004, 07:36:16 PM »

This plan sounds fine, just remember that if supporters of one candidate have a disproportionate majority in one region, they may be incentivized to change their region for the purposes of voting. A smaller party would be incentivized to have its members congregate in a single region, would could easily result in EVs won by more than two parties and no electoral majority.

we probably need a clause that says you can not swich a region more then once every term or so

Yes, and preferably not while the election is going on.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.