The New Atlasia (a proposal for how a new political system could look)

[Purple State]

I agree with Marokai that the number of offices is far too large. I also don't agree that the federal Constitution should dictate the number of legislature members each region can have. Shouldn't that be up to each region?

Also, is the Governor/President supposed to be chosen by the respective legislature? And must he be a member of the legislature?

On another note, if a member of a legislature is removed, and he is the only member of his party not in public office, wouldn't the party be forced to reappoint that member to the legislature? This would result in a paradoxical loop of sorts.

Edit: I also have a problem with using the D'Hondt system. As if elections weren't complicated enough.

Edit 2: It would probably work more efficiently to have a sort of half D'Hondt system, in which you vote by party lists (strengthening party ties) while using an allocation system based on simple proportions. Parties would have to rank their lists and then, based on the proportions, the top X ranked party members are seated.

[Purple State]

See my second edit for my actual opinion of D'Hondt.

As for numbers of the legislature, those should really just be left blank for the regions to decide through Constitutional Conventions of their own.

This Constitution (I know it's a first draft) does need a good bit of clarification and clean-up, but its not a bad start. There are a number of systems worth considering, from D'Hondt to parliamentary to a reboot of the current system. And there are plenty of mix-and-match options.

I do agree that the new government must include never before seen (in Atlasia) instruments to create new and exciting dynamics to a game that has become rote and boring.

[Purple State]

I don't know how much increasing partisan wrangling would hurt the system. Yes you are forming rivalries and perhaps a less than friendly exchange of ideas. However, you do create closer knit groups, force compromise, etc.

I would like to hold off on real proposals until the actual Convention. I feel as though preconceived ideas will harm the essence of the process, even if it may expedite the finish. The 4CC has to be done slowly and deliberately. Your ideas aren't bad, but I think you should hold off on presenting them. In the meantime, keep tweaking them and figuring out how to make them better. You don't need to start actively campaigning for a position as a delegate just yet.

[Purple State]

I don't know how much increasing partisan wrangling would hurt the system. Yes you are forming rivalries and perhaps a less than friendly exchange of ideas. However, you do create closer knit groups, force compromise, etc.

I would like to hold off on real proposals until the actual Convention. I feel as though preconceived ideas will harm the essence of the process, even if it may expedite the finish. The 4CC has to be done slowly and deliberately. Your ideas aren't bad, but I think you should hold off on presenting them. In the meantime, keep tweaking them and figuring out how to make them better. You don't need to start actively campaigning for a position as a delegate just yet.

Hey that's fine...but Atlasia isn't active....I felt that making a specific proposal might start DEBATE. THat's the important thing here. I'm not proposing this as a final solution that needs to be adopted, it's just a start.

I don't see why the convention has to be officially started to talk about these things. I welcome proposals from anyone else...in fact, I hope that my proposal leads others to MAKE their own proposals. It's a discussion starter.

Frankly, I think we do need to move fairly quickly....because nobody seems to care much anymore. Obviously this all needs to be done primarily during the convention, but it can't hurt to know where people stand, especially if they're to be elected as delegates by popular vote.

And as a delegate, I'm simply offering my services, don't see the problem here. You yourself stated earlier today that you wished to be one, PS.

I believe there is a difference between declaring your intent to serve as a delegate (which I have done a number of times already) and taking the step of bringing actual proposals to the floor before anything is up and running.

Looking at the responses this thread has already received, my worries have actually been fulfilled. To have people entering the Convention with preconceived ideas about what they are looking for, especially as concrete as the one you are proposing, will make a Convention harder to run productively. Instead, people will enter already convinced they support or reject a certain idea. Nor does it help that people have "opinions" on this piece. When compared to the system we currently use, yes this looks phenomenal. However, that is not what we will be comparing this to in the Convention. It should stand side-by-side with the proposals it will actually rival, rather than on its own.

In addition, I do not agree that the process should be run fairly quickly. Atlasia has been deteriorating for a while now. It currently holds static. An extra month will not kill it. Rebooting the game must take time. It has to be done with great care to ensure we get a lively and renewed system, not a short-lived carryover.

I believe that a Convention sub-board will allow for more conducive discussion of all of this in a more concentrated atmosphere. Until then, the smartest thing to do is to think about the options, listen to the people, and make your intentions of running known on a more grassroots level. You may not agree, but I wanted to voice my concerns. The last thing I want to see is the derailing of the convention because of hasty action.