Electoral Reform Debate - Oakvale v. Clyde

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Senator HagridOfTheDeep introduces the topic of the night's debate.

Thank you, President Lumine and good evening from Louisiana State University. I’m HagridOfTheDeep, Independent Senator from the South, and I’ll be the moderator of tonight’s debate. The focus of our discussion will be on electoral reform and, specifically, the proposed districts system. This issue is of particular interest tonight as our country tragically faces the threat of rebellion from individuals demanding a greater say for the regions in Atlasian politics. While each of us condemns these actions, they provide a sobering backdrop to this debate. Our hearts are with all Atlasians feeling troubled or threatened by this turn of events.

At this moment, I would like to introduce Assemblyman Clyde1998 and Justice Oakvale. Gentlemen, good luck.

In December 2007, after years of electing half the senate from dynamic districts, the government abolished, by statute and amendment, this electoral system. What is your take on how this system played out in the past? What lessons can we learn from this experience as we debate reintroducing districts today?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thank you, Assemblyman. I'll ask you to elaborate on a few of the points you raised once I hear from Justice Oakvale, but I'd like to circle back to my original question. Are there specific examples from the last time we tried this system of its failure?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thank you, Justice Oakvale. Assemblyman Clyde1998, you now have the floor to address my follow-up question and rebut Oakvale's points.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thank you Justice Oakvale and Assemblyman Clyde1998 for the lively back-and-forth. Assemblyman Clyde raised an interesting point that I'd like to come back to. The amendment we're currently debating would indeed eliminate at-large elections. What would this mean for regional representation at the federal level? Some have made the argument that we would now have two classes of regional seats. Do you buy into this interpretation? Would it be a positive development?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Will you also be answering my question, Assemblyman? Either way, I think it's interesting that you bring up a longer average term length among regional senators as a negative. Why do you see it this way? Perhaps Justice Oakvale would like to speak on this too?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thank you, Clyde. I was hoping Justice Oakvale could also discuss the idea of senate turnover in the regional seats, but since he hasn't jumped on it, I'll move on. Apologies also for my delay here. My grandpa decided the last two days of class would be a good time to have a medical emergency.

Both of you have talked about competitiveness and partisanship as reasons for and against the districts proposal. I'd like to zero in on the actual process of drawing and negotiating the district boundaries. Some commentators have discussed the possibility of a "Labor conspiracy," some have said the process will be good for regional involvement, some are untrustworthy of the governors, and some see gerrymandering as a big negative. What are your thoughts on how the redistricting process would influence (and be influenced by) the partisan landscape of our country?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Justice Oakvale?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thank you. I now have a somewhat obscure question, but I'm wondering if both of you could acknowledge the points from the other side of the debate that you believe are most compelling. Oakvale, is there any detail about the proposal that you would change or that worries you? Clyde, is there anything you like about this idea? Could either of you imagine a compromise amendment? Would you support a changed amendment?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Do any of you have any questions for each other?