Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[bore]

Sorry Cris, but I don't think either of those changes are improvements.

Firstly it's not 35 days before the election but 35 days before the end of the lame duck term, which is only about 3 weeks at most before the election. With that election we could have special elections for 7 days of a lame duck term.

Secondly I don't think the 5 of 6 is necessary. There will undoubtedly be occasions where a governor just disappears and that shouldn't sink the process. 4 of 5 is nearly as steep a hurdle as 5 of 6 and gives the commission much more flexibility.

[bore]

I think this is ready and I think the 7 days without comment suggest most people agree with me, but does anyone have any more comments before we go to a final vote?

[bore]

After final consultation with homely I'd like to propose one more amendment, to stop canadian provinces being split between two districts:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

I'm open to suggestions on the wording, but hopefully we can get this finished as soon as possible.

[bore]

Is any senator willing to offer my amendment?

[bore]

I'm agnostic about the change oakvale suggests, but experience shows the more things an amendment deals with the less likely it is to pass, so seeing as this is basically a separate issue it should wait for another amendment.

[bore]

So, final vote time?

[bore]

In addition to what homely says, it's worth pointing out that although there is this idea (which does appear sensible in theory) that at large elections allow more extreme atlasians to get in, in fact I don't think this is supported by the facts.

TNF has views incredibly far to the left of the average atlasian, yet he has been re elected repeatedly, Deus was one or two votes away from defeating me in the centre left northeast, the mideast before windjammer saw a long line of social conservatives who's views are noticeably to the right of atlasia. In the last few years we have had, as regional senators, atlasia's most socially conservative, most libertarian and most left wing members.

[bore]

In addition to what homely says, it's worth pointing out that although there is this idea (which does appear sensible in theory) that at large elections allow more extreme atlasians to get in, in fact I don't think this is supported by the facts.

TNF has views incredibly far to the left of the average atlasian, yet he has been re elected repeatedly, Deus was one or two votes away from defeating me in the centre left northeast, the mideast before windjammer saw a long line of social conservatives who's views are noticeably to the right of atlasia. In the last few years we have had, as regional senators, atlasia's most socially conservative, most libertarian and most left wing members.

Yes, but Xahar and JCL both got elected as At-Large, I don't think either would have made it into a regional Senator seat though. JCL might have won in early 2014, but their was always a close liberal bloc that would peal off the swing votes that DC or TJ could win and defeat a JCL. The Regional Senate seats have a long history of encouraging less partisan and/or less ideologiclal results because you have to represent the region and unless that region is overwhelmingly lopsided that means appealing to Independents and moderates and so forth. Even the Mideast was rarely that lopsided and a Ben or a HappyWarrior could take it at various points and hold it until retiring.

JCL scraped by in an at large where labor were at their weakest. He also ran in the at large elections in December, April 2014 and August 2013 and lost all of them. Xahar ran a literal joke campaign and only won because after labor had ensured it's senators had won they directed their remaining zombies to vote for him.

If labor or the federalists were willing to put a bit of work in, they could get xahar and jcl elected to regional seats. Again, TNF is a regional senator. Xahar's problem would be that he was running a literal joke campaign. It's like someone castigating the UK election system because the Monster Raving Loony Party has never won a seat. Again, JCL's views do not differ that much from DC or TJ.

The evidence simply does not bear out the idea that people with views outside the mainstream are less likely to get elected in regional elections.

The At-Large election has some advantages. It is one big electoral event that is for all the nation, the only one aside from the presidential election. It usually gets high participation. Since it is one national election it is easier to organize a debate and have the focus on that. Since it is addressed to all voters it is worth doing a public campaign for a candidate. For candidates it is a chance to come in contact with people in all the nation. At-Large offers a different way for someone to enter the Senate while districts are more identical regional Senate election. Someone who is not popular or not well-known or who is less mainstream but backed by a big party can be elected in At-Large.

The at-large elections are, on the other hand, increasingly rarely competitive. The two most recent elections have featured six candidates running for five seats, with little doubt as to whom the five elected would be. This is often due to the fact that no major party has ever won more than two seats at a general at-large election, or has ever been foolish enough to consciously risk splitting their candidates' vote three ways.

Though not necessarily a major party, The Democratic Alliance won three in an election. And several parties have tried for three seats, including Labor if I am not mistaken, as well as the Federalists, RPP, JCP and some others.

I'm sure it's possible to go far back into atlasian history and find examples of parties running three candidates, but I'm not sure that's relevant to the current party system.

Here are the number of candidates with more than 2 votes for each of the regular at large elections:

April 2015: 6
December 2014: 6
August 2014: 7
April 2014: 6
December 2013: 7
August 2013: 7
April 2013: 7