Survey Atlasia - Regional Senate Seats

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why can't we just reduce the regions to three or four. If we did that it would put more people in each regions and will make the elections more of a toss-up.

I know you really like that idea, but it ain't gonna happen. Which region do we abolish? Which regional structures remain? Plus, each region would want to gain as many states as possible. The list goes on. Easier to change the structure of the government than the regions themselves.

We could go state by state and shift a few around a little bit. There was a map drawn up that had the SE stretchin almost to Canada but is extremely dated and wouldn't reflect modern partisan leanings.

Anything is possible though. Just a question of how much energy and effort you put into it.

[Franzl]

If you regionalists are so happy to go down to fewer than 5 regions.....whether to 4 or 3 or 2......what precisely are you protecting with your pro-region policies? If what you're protecting is so unimportant that you're readily willing to merge regions to make things more competitive, can one not argue that the regions themselves are unimportant and that the number could in reality be reduced to 1 to reach maximum competitiveness?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you regionalists are so happy to go down to fewer than 5 regions.....whether to 4 or 3 or 2......what precisely are you protecting with your pro-region policies? If what you're protecting is so unimportant that you're readily willing to merge regions to make things more competitive, can one not argue that the regions themselves are unimportant and that the number could in reality be reduced to 1 to reach maximum competitiveness?

I oppose reducing the number of regions on its face, I was just explaining to PS that it could in fact be done. But I would be willing to accept 4 REgions or maybe keep five and shift a few states around to increase competition as a reasonable compromise. But keeping the Regional Senate seats isn't up for debate.

[Devilman88]

If you regionalists are so happy to go down to fewer than 5 regions.....whether to 4 or 3 or 2......what precisely are you protecting with your pro-region policies? If what you're protecting is so unimportant that you're readily willing to merge regions to make things more competitive, can one not argue that the regions themselves are unimportant and that the number could in reality be reduced to 1 to reach maximum competitiveness?

Well,  the thing is, back when the regions were made there were many more active members. Now, having five regions, I believe is too many. I say three is good.

I have two maps:

The first one would just join the Pacific with the Midwest and the Southeast(DirtySouth) with the Mideast.



And the next one is this:

A map like this would be good:




Purple Region:
Total members: 67 people

Party Percentage:
PCP: 33% (22)
JCP: 27% (18)
DA: 16% (11)
LNF: 9% (6)
Other: 15% (10)

Yellow Region
Total Members: 55 people

Party Percentage:
PCP: 27% (15)
JCP: 38% (21)
DA: 9% (5)
LNF: 7 (4)
Other: 18% (10)

Blue Region
Total Members: 45 people

Party Percentage:
PCP: 31% (14)
JCP: 33% (15)
DA: 2% (1)
LNF: 7% (3)
Other: 27% (12)

[Franzl]

That isn't an answer to my question.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

[Devilman88]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

It would make elections more of a toss-up, like we want right? So what is the problem?

[Franzl]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

It would make elections more of a toss-up, like we want right? So what is the problem?

Says who? That doesn't make any sense. Simply increasing the number of voters has nothing to do with making elections competitive.

[Devilman88]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

It would make elections more of a toss-up, like we want right? So what is the problem?

Says who? That doesn't make any sense. Simply increasing the number of voters has nothing to do with making elections competitive.

Yes it would, look at the at-large seats, they are competitive because of the number of people voting. If we increase the number of people in each regions i.e reducing the regions to three then the elections will become more competitive. (Unless you have someone who is very popular and gets alot of votes, but you can't help that).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am afraid that we are once again in the same corners we have been in for months and in a few days it will just be question of who has the numbers and who doesn't.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

It would make elections more of a toss-up, like we want right? So what is the problem?

Says who? That doesn't make any sense. Simply increasing the number of voters has nothing to do with making elections competitive.

Yes it would, look at the at-large seats, they are competitive because of the number of people voting. If we increase the number of people in each regions i.e reducing the regions to three then the elections will become more competitive. (Unless you have someone who is very popular and gets alot of votes, but you can't help that).

At-large Senate seats aren't more competative though. In terms of recent elections the trend is in the opposite direction. The Regions are getting more competative and the At-large Senators are getting locked into place due to the strength of the parties.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

The idea of taking Arizona into the DS is very appealing so I can put you in your place once and for all someday.

[Franzl]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

It would make elections more of a toss-up, like we want right? So what is the problem?

Says who? That doesn't make any sense. Simply increasing the number of voters has nothing to do with making elections competitive.

Yes it would, look at the at-large seats, they are competitive because of the number of people voting. If we increase the number of people in each regions i.e reducing the regions to three then the elections will become more competitive. (Unless you have someone who is very popular and gets alot of votes, but you can't help that).

Incorrect and illogical, at-large elections are more competitive due to our electoral system, STV. The number of voters doesn't have much influence on competitiveness.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

The idea of taking Arizona into the DS is very appealing so I can put you in your place once and for all someday.

My oh my, Yankee, that kind of talk should be kept private.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

The idea of taking Arizona into the DS is very appealing so I can put you in your place once and for all someday.

My oh my, Yankee, that kind of talk should be kept private.

Haven't you learned by now, I am big fan of the public confrontation. Makes for good entertainment for everyone else.

[Devilman88]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

It would make elections more of a toss-up, like we want right? So what is the problem?

Says who? That doesn't make any sense. Simply increasing the number of voters has nothing to do with making elections competitive.

Yes it would, look at the at-large seats, they are competitive because of the number of people voting. If we increase the number of people in each regions i.e reducing the regions to three then the elections will become more competitive. (Unless you have someone who is very popular and gets alot of votes, but you can't help that).

Incorrect and illogical, at-large elections are more competitive due to our electoral system, STV. The number of voters doesn't have much influence on competitiveness.

That is because we are only electing one person per regions. If we reduce the regions to three then we could elected two from each regions and 4 at-large, using the same electoral system.

[Franzl]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

It would make elections more of a toss-up, like we want right? So what is the problem?

Says who? That doesn't make any sense. Simply increasing the number of voters has nothing to do with making elections competitive.

Yes it would, look at the at-large seats, they are competitive because of the number of people voting. If we increase the number of people in each regions i.e reducing the regions to three then the elections will become more competitive. (Unless you have someone who is very popular and gets alot of votes, but you can't help that).

Incorrect and illogical, at-large elections are more competitive due to our electoral system, STV. The number of voters doesn't have much influence on competitiveness.

That is because we are only electing one person per regions. If we reduce the regions to three then we could elected two from each regions and 4 at-large, using the same electoral system.

Well you have to say that That certainly would make it better than it currently is.

Although I'd still argue that national at-large proportional distribution makes for better elections.

[Devilman88]

Combining the Midwest and the Pacific would lead to some pretty hilarious and awesome conflicts, I'll admit.

But I don't like the idea of reducing regions. It doesn't really solve anything and just creates a whole other set of questions.

It would make elections more of a toss-up, like we want right? So what is the problem?

Says who? That doesn't make any sense. Simply increasing the number of voters has nothing to do with making elections competitive.

Yes it would, look at the at-large seats, they are competitive because of the number of people voting. If we increase the number of people in each regions i.e reducing the regions to three then the elections will become more competitive. (Unless you have someone who is very popular and gets alot of votes, but you can't help that).

Incorrect and illogical, at-large elections are more competitive due to our electoral system, STV. The number of voters doesn't have much influence on competitiveness.

That is because we are only electing one person per regions. If we reduce the regions to three then we could elected two from each regions and 4 at-large, using the same electoral system.

Well you have to say that That certainly would make it better than it currently is.

Although I'd still argue that national at-large proportional distribution makes for better elections.

I'm sorry, sometimes I think I posted stuff but  really didn't

[Vepres]

I have a question for some of the fossils around here: What made regional and (when they existed) district Senate elections more competitive back in 2005 and such?

[Devilman88]

I have a question for some of the fossils around here: What made regional and (when they existed) district Senate elections more competitive back in 2005 and such?

crossover votes, and you have two or three good candidates running for the same seat.

[Brandon H]

I have a question for some of the fossils around here: What made regional and (when they existed) district Senate elections more competitive back in 2005 and such?

You had more people registered in their own state. You had conservatives in the Pacific and liberals in the Southeast. Also, you had 5 or 6 major parties and they were all across Atlasia, rather than 3 or 4 parties only present in some of the regions. So the result was you would end up with 3 or 4 candidates in most elections.

The last two elections were compared to the June 2005 election in terms of turnout, topping 100 voters. The last two elections had two and four sets of candidates. I believe June 2005 had 6 sets of candidates, representing the many different parties. I found this past MW senate race one of the more interesting ones since there were 4 candidates and it could have gone in any direction.

If you really want competitive elections, any party with 25% or more of the voters should break into two smaller parties and then actually run against each other. Don't pretend you're in two separate parties but then operate as if you are one. And don't move to a region where your party has more strength. If you are in that region, consider moving some place else. But most here don't really want competitive elections. They just want things to benefit themselves and will use competition as an excuse.

And as a "fossil" (I'm in my 80s in Atlasian years ) who has been here since 2005, I can also say there was more civility and respect in 2005 than there is now.

[Хahar 🤔]

What is this DS?

[Associate Justice PiT]

What is this DS?

     You know exactly what he's talking about. No need to be cute about it.

[Хahar 🤔]

What is this DS?

     You know exactly what he's talking about. No need to be cute about it.

It isn't the name of anything.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What is this DS?

     You know exactly what he's talking about. No need to be cute about it.

It isn't the name of anything.

     You know what he's talking about anyway. Since the purpose of language is communication, I would posit that his use of language here has succeeded.