Are there too many senators?

[Joseph Cao]

I was never PMed either when I was in Congress FWIW. The presiding officer will take your activity levels into account when sending PMs, it helps to cut down on spam into the inboxes of people who already check AFG regularly of their own accord.

I really think the "someone else will do it" mindset is key to the inactivity, and this is made worse by an 18-member body as opposed to a smaller group of people. But that's just my opinion. If everyone loves having 18 senators, then it's fine by me, I didn't realize people were so satisfied with the status quo. Was just trying to promote something, anything, that will jump-start activity again.

Hopefully thinking about this has gotten someone to come up with an even better idea!

As an observer, when I go to the government thread and there are 20 thread that were active during the day, it's too much. I end up looking at zero thread.

I suggested focusing on less bills at a time. Maybe it was seen as being lazy. I found it would be easier for people to participate if there is more focus on a few things rather than many. With many bills it's easier to skip over, or have the someone will do it mindset. But legislators want their issue and bill on the floor. 

I did my best to ration out the queue and limit the number of actively debated bills at any time when I was PPT. On some threads I was lucky to get any responses other than mine.

Functionally what happens is the people who don't comment will never comment regardless, but the senators who actually want to debate may perhaps catch onto more threads of the ongoing debate and keep it moving. So there is some merit to this but it wouldn't have an effect on the part of the Senate that never shows up.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I was never PMed either when I was in Congress FWIW. The presiding officer will take your activity levels into account when sending PMs, it helps to cut down on spam into the inboxes of people who already check AFG regularly of their own accord.

I really think the "someone else will do it" mindset is key to the inactivity, and this is made worse by an 18-member body as opposed to a smaller group of people. But that's just my opinion. If everyone loves having 18 senators, then it's fine by me, I didn't realize people were so satisfied with the status quo. Was just trying to promote something, anything, that will jump-start activity again.

Hopefully thinking about this has gotten someone to come up with an even better idea!

As an observer, when I go to the government thread and there are 20 thread that were active during the day, it's too much. I end up looking at zero thread.

I suggested focusing on less bills at a time. Maybe it was seen as being lazy. I found it would be easier for people to participate if there is more focus on a few things rather than many. With many bills it's easier to skip over, or have the someone will do it mindset. But legislators want their issue and bill on the floor.  

I did my best to ration out the queue and limit the number of actively debated bills at any time when I was PPT. On some threads I was lucky to get any responses other than mine.

Functionally what happens is the people who don't comment will never comment regardless, but the senators who actually want to debate may perhaps catch onto more threads of the ongoing debate and keep it moving. So there is some merit to this but it wouldn't have an effect on the part of the Senate that never shows up.

It doesn't help that it is super chaotic, and that all I do is vote on cloture votes or amendments, with the result that i don't even know if i have voted for a certain act when there is a final vote.

Maybe if people would just allow an act to go to a final vote instead of objecting, it would be easier to handle. I mean most of the threads - due to an ill PPT - have been on the boards for quite a while, so if you have to object because there is not enough debate on the thread according to you, it's because one didn't take the time to respond in a thread for over a month.

The result is pure filibustering and than one complains on the boards that the senate is inactive... No wonder if all we do is fillibuster and delay final votes.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

For me personally, the reason i don't always fully participate in the debate of a certain thread, is because for some bills, the language used is very complex and english isn't my native language. A good example of that is the alcohol or wine bill that is being debated. For someone who doesn't master english like anyone else, who isn't an expert in the theme of alcohol as well, there is little i can add to such a debate, and i think the contents of the act discussed is non-controversial. With a lot of acts, i have language issues. I even don't know what "cloture" means, which is why i had to change my votes on the cloture votes because I misunderstood the process of cloture.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

As far as PMs, I never did those either unless it was a constitutional amendment (like the tribal nations one) that for some reason or another I determined were essential to pass.

But I can't stress this enough: if a party is serious about using its leverage as a caucus in the Senate, it never hurts to appoint a Whip or delegate those responsibilities to someone. People were skeptical when I introduced (and ran for) the Whip position in Peace, but we have it specifically because half the Senate misses these votes and we don't want to be part of that number without good reason.

[Poirot]

I don't know if the subregions senate election were put in place to have other competitive elections but very very few are competitive.

[West_Midlander]

I don't know if the subregions senate election were put in place to have other competitive elections but very very few are competitive.

I thought it was so the at-large seats balanced the regional ones 9-9?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sub regions were the substitute for the five region map. As long as we had three regions electing two seats regionwide, the left would dominate the Senate most of the time. We gave up bicameralism in exchange for the sub regions.

It was not about making each individual election competitive, it was about making control of Congress competitive and it worked. Previously only the at large house was competitive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't know if the subregions senate election were put in place to have other competitive elections but very very few are competitive.

I thought it was so the at-large seats balanced the regional ones 9-9?

Since 2005 the legislative branch has been equally balanced between regional and popular representation. Bicameral was separate chambers with equal powers unicameral was five-five and since 2021 nine-nine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The danger in reducing atlarge is that it increases the quota with fewer seats which has a tendency to shut out the narrower niche bases.

If turnout increases, a seven or five seat chamber could have a quota in the mid to high twenties.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The danger of reducing the regional seats is that those with the broadest bases tend to dominate as happened with the bicameral system. This is multiplied by fewer regions, going from five to three made this dynamic much worse.

You say want competition and then the solutions advanced have the opposite effect.

I will explain this more when I get home.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Ftr I haven't been PMed for votes this whole Congress.

I proposed creating a senate discord group, so that all notices could be mentioned on discord as well, but that idea was rejected, with the notion that it is everyones own responsability to look at the threads and vote.

How many can be in a Discord group chat? I thought it was 10 or thereabouts. Unless there was a Senate Discord. Perhaps Senators could just be pinged by someone on Discord/Lokcord, although I don't know how many are there. I also think it's important that this is limited to pinging, which is easier to do there than to send a bunch of messages here, but policy discussion should be focused here ofc.

Max. 10 but I was thinking of starting an entire Discord. It would not be used for discussion, unless there are questions.

But it is less daunting to ping on Discord, than to send a million PMs and links on the forums. Much less work for the PPT which would result in the PPT being more able to notify people that there are ongoing votes.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Also, i'm a strong proponent of the current system, including the subregions. I'll vote against efforts to change the current system, and i'm strongly opposed to most of the proposals named so far. I'm with Yankee on this one.

[Pericles]

The problem with the subregions is that they do not reliably produce competitive elections, because they are too small to always have enough people interested in the game. I'm sure if you ran the numbers, more subregional elections are unopposed than regional Senate seats were. This makes sense after all, Fremont had the most unopposed elections and Lincoln the least because they were the least and most populated respectively. This is especially problematic because we are at a point when the actual number of people interested in the game is low, but the subregional system means that every cycle more candidates must be found than were needed a few years ago.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I think the 5th Constitution found a pretty happy medium between having too many senators to the point that not all seats could be filled by active people, and having so few that small parties are shut out.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the 5th Constitution found a pretty happy medium between having too many senators to the point that not all seats could be filled by active people, and having so few that small parties are shut out.

And ultimately that is the general balancing act. Because frankly, eventually if you push too much in either direction, the end result is less competition and activity.

We also have to be mindful of other factors. People are less willing to run doomed and difficult campaigns anymore, a dynamic I have talked about in terms of President. The expectation for everyone is to win and the opposite result is often devastating, in some cases to the point of leaving. I am not sure if this is all internal expectations, or external pressure from others that drives this at this point, probably a little bit of both.

With more parties then most of our history, we might actually see improvements in the latter dynamic though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem with the subregions is that they do not reliably produce competitive elections, because they are too small to always have enough people interested in the game. I'm sure if you ran the numbers, more subregional elections are unopposed than regional Senate seats were. This makes sense after all, Fremont had the most unopposed elections and Lincoln the least because they were the least and most populated respectively. This is especially problematic because we are at a point when the actual number of people interested in the game is low, but the subregional system means that every cycle more candidates must be found than were needed a few years ago.

And this was the problem that plagued the five region system as well. Pacific was always the weakest region, even when it encompassed much of what is now the Mountain West as well. However, like I said previously, it is in your partisan interest to push this aspect and only this aspect, because as the period between 2016-2021 demonstrates, fewer and larger regions typically benefits the left and especially the well organized left. The discord machines steamroll in that dynamic.


Smaller parties, the right and independents tend to benefit from more and smaller regions or in this case sub regions. This is because a smaller group of voters, it is easier to do personal outreach, retail politics and persuasion with a 10 or 15 people than it is to do that with 30 or 40, and thereby overcome partisanship and the discord hordes.

This also creates a dynamic where "competence reduces competition", this is because a Scott or a me or someone can park themselves in a sub-region or region, dominate the Senate with their activity and likewise dominate the elections in turn. There were a number of times, where the Regional Senators were more competent/active while the inactive hacks got muscled in via At-large. I can also tell you from my own pain and suffering as House Speaker, that At-large is no guarantee of either activity or competition and some of the worst were often the safest.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I think the 5th Constitution found a pretty happy medium between having too many senators to the point that not all seats could be filled by active people, and having so few that small parties are shut out.

And ultimately that is the general balancing act. Because frankly, eventually if you push too much in either direction, the end result is less competition and activity.

We also have to be mindful of other factors. People are less willing to run doomed and difficult campaigns anymore, a dynamic I have talked about in terms of President. The expectation for everyone is to win and the opposite result is often devastating, in some cases to the point of leaving. I am not sure if this is all internal expectations, or external pressure from others that drives this at this point, probably a little bit of both.

With more parties then most of our history, we might actually see improvements in the latter dynamic though.

Well in case of the governor's race in Lincoln, that was one I anticipated losing and considered to abandon the race, especially since i've had friendly exchanges with my opponent Oleg, but I decided to remain the race to at least give Lincoln a choice for governor. But I could not overcome the registration bias towards DA-Labor and I anticipated that Labor would just support Oleg.

I'm of the belief that if you don't try, you won't win and it's okay to lose an election. But i'll do everything I can to win elections, even the ones that are hard to win. It is in general good for the game.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the 5th Constitution found a pretty happy medium between having too many senators to the point that not all seats could be filled by active people, and having so few that small parties are shut out.

And ultimately that is the general balancing act. Because frankly, eventually if you push too much in either direction, the end result is less competition and activity.

We also have to be mindful of other factors. People are less willing to run doomed and difficult campaigns anymore, a dynamic I have talked about in terms of President. The expectation for everyone is to win and the opposite result is often devastating, in some cases to the point of leaving. I am not sure if this is all internal expectations, or external pressure from others that drives this at this point, probably a little bit of both.

With more parties then most of our history, we might actually see improvements in the latter dynamic though.

Well in case of the governor's race in Lincoln, that was one I anticipated losing and considered to abandon the race, especially since i've had friendly exchanges with my opponent Oleg, but I decided to remain the race to at least give Lincoln a choice for governor. But I could not overcome the registration bias towards DA-Labor and I anticipated that Labor would just support Oleg.

I'm of the belief that if you don't try, you won't win and it's okay to lose an election. But i'll do everything I can to win elections, even the ones that are hard to win. It is in general good for the game.

Plus you can build for the future with an unsuccessful bid. A good example was June 2014, where Maxwell gave me a hell of a run for my money and pulled me below 60% for the first time since Oct 2009. Some stated this could be a harbinger of things to come at the time, which I was determined to prevent but because of rl disaster (story of my life) the trends continued. I was unopposed the following October, but lost by 2 the following February.


Its also the same thing I told the OG DA in 2010 when they ditched the Northeast for other regions. Sure enough, when the Populares collapsed that fall, it was the JCP that capitalized and made that region safe for them and subsequently for the liberals (2012-2013) and then Labor (though it was competitive in 2013-2014). 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The South will have a plan to address our Senators, stay tuned!

Ominous, but fortunately for me, freedom's just another word...

[S019]

Constitutional reform had good intentions, but it occurred when there was the player base to sustain a high amount of seats, the shrinkage in the amount of active players means this base no longer exists.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Constitutional reform had good intentions, but it occurred when there was the player base to sustain a high amount of seats, the shrinkage in the amount of active players means this base no longer exists.

We in the Federalist Party knew this drop was coming.

We even had a term for it, "de-growth", which I think I got from Reagente describe the economic policies in Florida IRL.  

We also were not too dismayed by it, because after February and June 2021, we abandoned the high population model as a strategy. Fortunately Labor did too or just scaled back commensurately, and/or external forces prevailed (probably some combination of the above) and this made December 2021 possible.

Frankly I don't think it has as much impact on the Senate landscape because much of the decline was from low engagement participants anyway. The game was way too inflated in 2019-2021, this proportionately increased the inactive share of the population without really boosting activity, decreased competition and destroyed activity on the AFE board. This was when discordification was on the rise, as was the continuation of the post-2016 reset dynamic of what I dubbed as Speaker, "Arms length legislating". A dynamic that has grown worse since I first came up with it to describe the legislating style of JGibson I think in 2017.

Keep in mind that the Bicameral system with a 15 member Congress was created at a time when 130 was the high end for elections from 2009 until 2018  and the game had sunk from that during the decline of 2015. We never really encountered a situation where the game blew past that turnout figure until 2018, and if you told someone in 2017 or any time prior that we would have 200 vote elections with 100 a piece, they would have thought you were crazy.