I have opposed this every time that Ishan brought it up. I understand the concern here certainly, and that is why under my leadership I have gone to great lengths to ensure that various factions on the right are not subordinated when vacancies occur. That being said, the preservation of such voices and their elimination can just as easily be silenced via the 51% subjugating the 11% that would otherwise be sufficient to win a seat, and there by eliminating dissent.
The benefits of the At-large, is that it allows a gradient of voices to be heard as a product of the election. This way various niches are represented, at the same time, the majority is respected. Its a great balance, and one that a 50+1% special election cannot adequately replicate (see above).
Love or hate Deadprez, his niche views would not get close to 50% in a special election. The same can be said of various groups on the left, various third parties and such forth. In this way, in the blind quest for majority rule, we actually are diminishing the elected "representative" composition in favor of the biggest machine.
There have been times in the past where the right went entirely without at-large representation, pre-reset when this policy was in effect. Summer of 2009 was one such example.
There were times when people felt they had to stay in office when they needed to resign bc of RL concerns, because the seat would certainly flip if vacated mid term.
Its one of those things that sounds good at first glance, but there is a reason we abandoned this approach around the time of reset. Let's not turn back the clock on this one.
