ConCon candidates: do you broadly support my plan?

[Adam Griffin]

Inquiring minds need to know! If you are a voter who's not running to be a ConCon candidate, then please voice your opinion here.

I have actually shortened the original posts in order for them to all fit here/allow people to more adequately ingest the information in a summarized fashion, but the full posts can be read by clicking on the quotes. In essence, it's the original consolidation/Duke Plan for bicameralism efforts from two years ago, mixed with some more details that were never contemplated before because we never got that far:

GRIFF'S PRELIMINARY REGIONAL CONCON REFORM PLANS:

Basic Regional Dynamics

• Three regions, built on my CARCA proposal (map #6; the winner of the 2013 & 2015 CARCA projects)
• New nation includes Canada & Mexico; possibly Caribbean nations as well
• 1 Governor/Executive per region
• 1 CJO per region

Max number of regional legislators fixed to federal formula, assessed every 2 months:

Idea #1 (My Favorite Idea)

• <25% of the game's population = 3 Legislators
• 25-40% of the game's population = 5 Legislators
• >40% of the game's population = 3 Legislators

Idea #2

• 01-39 Citizens = Universal Legislature
• 40-79 Citizens = 3 Legislators
• 80+ Citizens = 5 Legislators

Estimated # of Regional Offices = 15

TIME FOR A NEW NATION - A UNITED NORTH AMERICA

My original CARCA two years ago produced a superior map, forged from the overall consensus of nearly 20 people. While many of those people have since faded away, I submitted the original CARCA map for consideration in the new CARCA, and as of now, it is on track to be adopted once again out of all of the options. It is clear that I have been at the forefront of forging consensus on what a new, three-region Atlasia will look like, and that my judgement should be trusted in these matters.

It is very common for us to forget about how Marokai and I almost single-handedly added Canada to the game, and it's even more common to forget about it during the map design process (as we did during CARCA both times). As GM, I made sure to update the Wiki to reflect in all major cases that we are in a common market agreement with Canada, by changing the maps to reflect each region (and the nation's) true extent.

It's important to bring this up, because I will not accept a scenario in which Canada is left out of the new game. In fact, I believe it is high-time that we move ahead to maintain not just the territorial technicalities that we have, but to push ahead for a new and united North America under one government in totality. Word through the grapevine says that some cretins are claiming the entirety of a continent to the south of us: can we really afford to allow them to selfishly and rudely claim entire segments of the globe?

Not only should we unite with Canada, but I propose that we also create a new Atlasia that contains (the current) Oceania, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, the Bahamas, Bermuda, US Virgin Islands, Antigua & Barbuda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Dominica, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Grenada, & Trinidad & Tobago. In short, I am proposing a complete and total unification of North America (minus most/all of those pesky commonwealths and what not of other countries).

http://i.imgur.com/LfwpGdj.png

BICAMERALISM AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

• Two chambers - House and Senate
• House of 11; elected every 2 months; PLPR
• Senate of 6, 2 for each region; elected every 4 months; 3 by voters & 3 by legislatures; staggered elections

• Current President & VP are weak; consolidate power
• VP abolished; tie-breaking power in Senate given to President
• House elects Prime Minister; tie-breaking power in House given to PM
• PM succeeds President in vacancy; potential special election for P if vacancy is early in term

• SC Justices appointed to one year terms, staggered (Feb/Mar, Jun/Jul, Oct/Nov)
• Term for a particular Justice ends at the beginning of a President's term
• Justices can be reappointed; must face congressional confirmation regardless
• Every President will have ability to appoint at least 1 SC Justice, potentially 2
• No one will have to live to multi-year consequences of bad SC appointments

[Classic Conservative]

No not at all.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yep.

[rpryor03]

A good deal of it.

[pikachu]

Pretty much everything except bicameralism since I don't believe we have the activity for it, though it's something that should be revisited if/when we do.

[Oakvale]

I will to my dying breath oppose adding more countries to Atlasia, and will actually fight to withdraw from Canada if selected. However, I am in full agreement with the legislature reform and regional consolidation parts of the platform. It's unlikely any other plan can revive Atlasia.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

No not at all.

Ditto

[tmthforu94]

I support parts of it, mainly consolidation. I do have a hesitancy at the federal government controlling the way regional governments operate. Perhaps for a few months to ensure stability, but I would want to return power to the regions as quickly as possible.

I like the idea of a bicameral legislature, as well as reforms to the Supreme Court. I am unsure on removing the VP's role, but I am definitely open to discussion on it.

Going in, I have a bit of an "all of the above" approach. Big changes need to be made - it is up to the delegates to figure out which big changes those are.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

assuming we don't become independent, yes, mostly. not a huge fan of unified north america.

[Leinad]

I like most of it. Bicameralism sounds fun, but I think Pikachu has a point re: activity. I'm also hesitant regarding the VP/PM stuff, and like Tmth I'm not a fan of federally controlling regional governments--but I like the continental expansion bit (I have no clue why on earth Oakvale is so vehemently opposed to it--you realize we aren't actually violently conquering these places right?) and I like your CARCA map although as I said in that thread I would have it slightly altered.

Overall it's a pretty good starting point. I'd love to hear Classic's and JCL's concerns--if people simply say "no" then Adam can't address the issues or fix them. We need to discuss these things, people.

[Adam Griffin]

Pretty much everything except bicameralism since I don't believe we have the activity for it, though it's something that should be revisited if/when we do.

I support parts of it, mainly consolidation. I do have a hesitancy at the federal government controlling the way regional governments operate. Perhaps for a few months to ensure stability, but I would want to return power to the regions as quickly as possible.

I like most of it. Bicameralism sounds fun, but I think Pikachu has a point re: activity.

It's important to connect all of these concerns, because they are related.

I swear that over the past two years, the biggest problem I've had with respect to messaging on this broader issue was getting it across that we will have a net reduction of offices under any plan proposed by me. In the current plan I've outlined, there is an estimated net reduction of 13 offices in the game with a second federal chamber included based on the current population trends of the game (assuming a decent amount of population imbalance remains in the regions; 3 legislators per region).

Now, the primary obstacle with respect to ensuring that we reduce the number of offices by enough while also guaranteeing the option for a second chamber comes down to the regions.

Regions tend - more so than the federal government - to get ahead of themselves with the creation of new titles and offices. We've seen regions constantly contract and expand to meet the needs or lack thereof for elections, which is why I believe having a streamlined system in place that governs activity and population with respect to the game at-large is crucial and will be more effective.

Only when/if the three regions are nearly balanced in population will each region be able to expand to 5 legislators, at which point we would have 7 fewer offices throughout the game than we currently have.

I'm not sure if my original proposal worded it as an automatic provision with respect to expansion, but doing some further thinking on the matter, I believe that it should only be "automatic" in one direction (downgrading from 5 to 3) and not in the other (expanding from 3 to 5), as I will be honest: having 5 legislators in each region brings us dangerously close (when factoring in that 2 cabinet position eliminations - jobs that mostly can be held while doing something else - are included in the office reduction figures) to the current number of offices. Hopefully in some cases, a region might qualify for expanding its legislature to 5 members but might choose not to do so for a number of reasons.

Nevertheless, having no governing mechanism to ensure that regional populations do not spiral out of control in some areas without penalty will almost certainly and inevitably lead us to a result in which there are as many offices as there are today, with an equivalent amount of population imbalance throughout the regions (and almost certainly too many regional legislative openings in 1 or more regions).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I fully support regional consolidation, but I oppose bicameralism. It will only make the legislative process more lenghty and I fear our activity level may make it difficult to work. I could support this as a constitutional amendment later.

I support the max number of regional legislators.

I oppose plans regarding Mexico and Canada. We should rather set up a new playable country within our universe rather than expand, especially with out activity and structural problems.

I oppose introduction of Prime Minister under your plan. The choice it's between adopting parliamentarism altogether or strenghing the presidential powers. A dual system won't work.

I support abolition of the Vice Presidency.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

My biggest opposition to this proposal is consolidation. Most of the CARCA maps put most of the current Mideast in the Northeast. States like Indiana don't fit in the Northeast and our electoral voice would be overcome. Not that the current political climate in the Mideast is making it easy to be a conservatarian.

[Leinad]

Yeah, I know the number of offices are still reduced even with bicameralism, but I'm not sure if it's reduced enough. (Certain people are now shocked that I'm taking the "this isn't radical enough" stance, I'm sure.) I mean--the activity-to-offices ratio is horrendous right now.

[pikachu]

Yeah, I know the number of offices are still reduced even with bicameralism, but I'm not sure if it's reduced enough. (Certain people are now shocked that I'm taking the "this isn't radical enough" stance, I'm sure.) I mean--the activity-to-offices ratio is horrendous right now.

Yeah, this is my concern. I worry about our ability to be able to have both competitive elections and active officeholders for 41 offices. I do agree that we should keep regional officeholders on the lower end, and we should only expand the number of offices when we're on more stable footing.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I support some of it like those portions that originate from the Duke plan and might be open to a united North America, but I certainly wouldn't oppose a plan that included such because of it being there at the very least.


I would prefer to keep the VP though. And Judicial term limits worries me in a game like this, as I have said since 2013.

[Simfan34]

No, not really. Especially nothing that has anything to do with annexing other countries. I have always bitterly opposed any such thing.