ScottSurveys: The Regional Restructuring Amendment of 2012

[Napoleon]

Extremely negative.

Would be positive if it did not reduce the number of Senators.

[Napoleon]

Positive, because hey, it's reform actually being proposed.

"Proposal" is a low standard to use to form an opinion. There are a lot of bad reform ideas, reducing the number of Senate seats is one of the worst. As someone who has served two terms as a regional Senator, that body needs all the active participants it can get.

[Napoleon]

If you want to reduce the number of regions do you reduce the Senate's composition, or do you give the finger to the Regional Rights movement?

I do not understand what you are trying to say. When ilikeverin remarked on how Northeastern voters are under-represented in the Senate due to population imbalance you applied Northeastern At Large Senators to our delegation to argue it was fair. Either your argument here is full of crap or your argument there was full of crap because it is contradictory to say regions can't be represented by At Large Senators now.

Additionally, I do not understand why I should care less about reducing the voting public's influence in the lawmaking process by reducing seats than reducing regions' influence by not having an exactly equal number of seats for each side. I care more about the game being able to function properly than I do anything else.

As we all should.

[Napoleon]

Positive, because hey, it's reform actually being proposed.

"Proposal" is a low standard to use to form an opinion. There are a lot of bad reform ideas, reducing the number of Senate seats is one of the worst. As someone who has served two terms as a regional Senator, that body needs all the active participants it can get.

Not saying it's a good idea or it should be enacted, but I have a positive opinion because, despite the flaws, it's an actual serious proposal for reform, and can of course be amended.

If it didn't reduce the number of Senators it would be great but as it stands I believe it causes more problems than it solves and the sponsor appears unwilling to budge.

[Napoleon]

I never said regional rights and the functionality of the game are mutually exclusive. I do think rather strongly that reducing the number of Senators and the functionality of the game are mutually exclusive. I also believe that protecting the rights of regions is not reliant on an equal balance of regional and at large seats and you made this same argument against ilikeverin's amendment. If we are going to parade around with this regional rights thing then I demand the Northeast be given another Senator since the region is about twice as large as any other. My region has a right to equal representation.

[Napoleon]

Giving 45 people the same representation as 21 people is not fair. I can live with it, but it makes me angry when those same people then think they can reduce the people's representation further and make elections less competitive.

[Napoleon]

That shouldn't be much of a concern since you could just move states like many others have. I actually like that aspect of the proposal, it is reducing the number of Senators that should be a dealbreaker. I am surprised Yankee would advocate something this damaging to the Senate.

[Napoleon]

Positive, but rather than eliminating seats their should be some provision by which the last two Senators are chosen in some other fashion. By lot. Elected by the two largest parties. Something.

Don't you expect highly predictable results with only four at large seats?

[Napoleon]

I would still like Romney see Yankee explain his argument here.

[Napoleon]

Wow, I really managed to get everyone's fur up, didn't I?  I don't see how reducing the number of senate seats by two would hurt anything, because two of the ten senators are always inactive, but if that is oh so important than how about we fill the other two seats through a third method?  The purpose of reducing the number of senate seats is merely to retain the balance between regional and at-large seats, but that does not preclude a third method from being introduced.

Which two Senators are inactive? Be specific. And what makes you think two of eight Senators wouldn't be inactive? Don't you see how bad that is for the Senate? Maybe a third method would work but I don't see the point of going through with an amendment that essentially kills at large senate elections. 4 seats 2 left 2 right 0 fun.

[Napoleon]

Extraordinarily negative. Stop trying to tear up the structure of the regions and just go back to a form of redistricting, ffs.

The problem is with the ability of regions (mostly MW and Pacific) to actually govern so redistricting wouldn't really solve anything. What would be more interesting IMO is to let people vote in two regions. You would have a primary region to run for office in and a secondary region as a voter only. A bit out there but it could actually make things more fun, competitive and all that other good stuff.