Legislative Reorganization Amendment [Failed]

[Franzl]

This has been discussed and debated in public a lot lately....I think the arguments in favor of this reform have been explained sufficiently....but if there are any questions or proposals to change something, please do speak up.

[Franzl]

As I've said before, I think this reform would make being a governor much more attractive. Considering this is a game...I don't see why it's so terrible that governors hold some executive and legislative power.


Oh, and the first sentence is certainly correct. At least speaking for myself, yes, my goal is to make senatorial elections more fair and competitive by electing all of them proportionally. I admit the Council of Governors is a way to preserve regional influence despite the reform in Senate elections.


Now to the regionalists who strongly oppose this, I don't see how they can argue that regions lose power under this proposal, seeing as they can block any law through regionally elected representatives alone.

[Franzl]

I need some explanation of section 4.  I am assuming class A and B would each be elected every two months, for four month terms, but this is not explicitly stated.  Will we still have 10 senators, in addition to the CoG?  What is meant by "a form of proportional representation?"  I think this needs to be spelled out as well.

Yes, class A and B already exist today, only one group consists of the regional senators at present, while the other is elected "at-large" proportionally.

The system of proportional allocation is defined by Atlasian statute (Single Transferable Vote).

[Franzl]

So both classes would be elected using the same methodology currently used for the at-large seats.

Sorry, the words "proportional representation" implied to me some sort of districting.

Perfectly legitimate question

[Franzl]

Now to the regionalists who strongly oppose this, I don't see how they can argue that regions lose power under this proposal, seeing as they can block any law through regionally elected representatives alone.

But why should they have that power? So now we are abolishing regional Senate seats in exchange for the ability for the Governors to block the passage of federal law !?!

Thats like trading in a poodle for a pitbull.

I don't think the principle is that different from the original purpose of the U.S. Senate....or perhaps even more accurately, the Bundesrat in Germany, the upper house controlled by the 16 state governments (ruling coalitions in each state).

Making the lower house, the Atlasian Senate, representative of all Atlasians through national at-large elections for every senator seems a worthy goal to me.

[Franzl]

I will not agree to a bi-cameral proposal in addition to existing offices, simply because I think we have enough elected offices as it is currently, and we don't need to even further reduce competition.

The Council of Governors proposal does not do that, and that's another reason I think its opponents might want to reconsider.

If not, the only circumstance that would get me to accept a different bi-cameral system would be to reduce the size of the Senate.

[Franzl]

Offered as a substitute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's clear we have insufficient support for the Council of Governors proposal, and we probably won't have any better luck with this, but might as well give it a go.

I admit my main concern is a proportional at-large Senate....if people don't want the CoG, I have no problem getting rid of it.

[Franzl]

I oppose this amendment, odd considering we were co-sponsors, no? In any case it will be voted on after a short amount of time allowing for more debate. I oppose proportional representation in any form.

You do realize that at-large seats are currently distributed proportionally?

[Franzl]

Just to be clear, my amendment is 100% taken out of Xahar's draft, I only left out the Council of Governors bit.

The proportional representation refers to our present system of electing at-large senators, nothing more.


Just thought we might try fair Senate elections without the Council of Governors, if so many people seem to be against that proposal.

[Franzl]

Aye

[Franzl]

I urge all Senators to oppose this massive infringement on Regional rights.

This amendment has nothing to do with regional "rights".

[Franzl]

Well what do we do now?

[Franzl]

I see no reason to strengthen regions.

And we both know this proposal would never get passed anyway even if it did have merit. Any and all change is DoA.

Well you said yourself the you don't like region seats because you think they are not competitive. This would make it competitive.

If you make all seat at-large, the DA and the PCP might as well leave, because we all know that the JCP will win most seats because they have more zombie voters and it will be very hard for the DA and the PCP to win senate seats.

This demonstrates your lack of understanding of how at-large seats are distributed. It's precisely proportional representation that makes it more likely for these parties to gain seats.

[Franzl]

I think the opposition to this and the massive failure of the ConCon show that people don't want change for the sake of change, things are pretty good in Atlasia right now

Yet you are still an advocate of a CoG in addition to the current regional seats. How is that more valid than our proposals?

Or is it only change for the sake of change when you disagree with it?

[Franzl]

As said, that is not how at-large elections work. They are proportional.

[Franzl]

It's like talking with a brick wall....

[Franzl]

It's like talking with a brick wall....

How so?

Do you know the definition of "proportional"?

[Franzl]

It's like talking with a brick wall....

[Franzl]

Guess what Josh, it's normal for the party with the most votes to have the most seats.

[Franzl]

The PCP only got 1 seat in the last at-large election because of their own poor strategy, nothing more.

[Franzl]

Let me ask you a question, what percentage of first preferences do you think you need under the at-large STV system in order to win one seat?

[Franzl]

If you knew what proportional meant you would be able to answer the question.

[Franzl]

If you knew what proportional meant you would be able to answer the question.

Well you would need at least 1/5 of the votes. But that percentage is different each time, because of the number of voters, right. Or something like that.

Well first of all, I was always taught that 1/5 = 20%, is that not true in North Carolina schools?


And 1/5 is correct, yes, you need either 20% of first preferences, or you get more votes through surplus or elimination.

The point is, this system is proportional. That means any party that can make up 20% of voters (assuming they stick to their party line, that isn't always true) gets a seat.

I fail to see how this unfairly benefits the JCP, considering every party can easily win a seat by getting at least 20% of votes.

It's the regional system that actually favors large parties!

[Franzl]

Why should I support a system that doesn't reflect the will of the national electorate?

If a party is not capable of getting 20% of the vote, it isn't entitled to any seats. Pretty simple.

[Franzl]

Afleitch I'd like your system more if it eliminated one of the classes.....particularly the class where 1 senator is elected from each region, because that's precisely what I'm trying to get rid of now.

Maybe we could alter your system to only allow 1 class.....and maybe change so that senators are up for election every 2 months instead of 4?