Shall we fix Atlasia?

[Napoleon]

Your party should boot you for treason.

Seriously, having that would completely marginalize the right.

Are you finally admitting your party has a structural advantage?

No. We have a political advantage right now similar to how conservatives did at the time of my joining. It isn't permanent or even that's big of a deal. Kalwejt won by only like five votes and he's been almost everything in Atlasia.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Fair enough.

If marginalizing the right-wing is a legitimate concern in that sort of plan, we could still allow Presidential vetoes of approved initiatives that don't achieve a certain threshold. (Like, 65% or something like that.) Or just require that initiatives get 60% to pass no matter what.

Though I'm not honestly sure if the right would suddenly fall apart as much as you think. I think on a lot of issues there's a lot of odd coalitions that could form in protecting/taking down certain things.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Given how ineffectual universal legislative initiatives have been on the regional level, I'm not sure what the point is in extending them to the federal level. Elected legislatures may decay, but at least they are healthy in the first place.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to compare individual regional legislatures to a scheduled national initiative system. A national initiative system would obviously have less activity and interest than an actual legislature, but that's also sort of the point of initiative systems. When the Southeast had regular initiatives, it actually was sort of an interesting event when initiative time came around. I think it deserves a try on the national level. People would certainly participate, and it would actually give us something to do in between election months.

[Napoleon]

We need more members of all ideologies. This will create more competitive elections and diversity of viewpoints, in turn causing activity.

[ilikeverin]

3)  All federal senate seats should become at-large.  It would free people from moving to certain regions just to support a senate candidate.  Instead, all senators would be responsible to all participants in Atlasia.

Tried proposing that on multiple occasions; it went nowhere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See also universalism, 2009 (or was it 2008?); this will go nowhere.

[ZuWo]

I like the idea of referenda and constitutional initiatives on the federal level. That could make the game more interesting and get more people involved in decision making. As has been pointed out in this thread, it could work this way: a bill passed by the Senate could be subject to a referendum if let's say 15 or 20 people publicly support such a referendum. Likewise, the option of a constitutional initiative could be established. If a voter or a group of voters believe the Senate does not take care of a particular issue they could draft a bill on their own, get a certain number of people to support it (maybe 15 or 20 again) and then bring it to a popular vote. That's the Swiss model, basically.

[OAM]

Maybe also add an initiative to bring an issue to vote in the senate.  I have a few ideas for how it would work, but first does anyone thing this is a good idea?

[Napoleon]

Look the problem with Atlasia isn't that the Senate isn't tackling important issues or doing enough.

[OAM]

I was more thinking that if we want referendums we should go all the way with them, though that's a concern too.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

If someone has an issue they want to be discussed, they can always send it to their senator and have them introduce it on the senate floor.

I don't know how this senate referendum works. It sounds cumbersome, but it's probably because I just don't fully understand how it works. I could see holding a public vote on legislation holding a lot of things up, but I supposed if enough people said they wanted a vote, it would be useful.

[Napoleon]

I was more thinking that if we want referendums we should go all the way with them, though that's a concern too.

I didn't expect you to know since you're new but most of these guys should.

The Senaate for the most part works very hard. At least I do...

[Oakvale]

This is a very minor change, but someone (Marokai?) on the Game Reform panel - whatever happened to that, BTW? - suggested implementing a legal framework for in-party caucuses. Given that the game has recently trended towards having two large and fairly diverse political parties, I think this would add an interesting element of back room skulduggery and intrigue to a game that needs it.

[Cincinnatus]

This is a very minor change, but someone (Marokai?) on the Game Reform panel - whatever happened to that, BTW? - suggested implementing a legal framework for in-party caucuses. Given that the game has recently trended towards having two large and fairly diverse political parties, I think this would add an interesting element of back room skulduggery and intrigue to a game that needs it.

Marokai quit and it basically dissolved. 

[Oakvale]

This is a very minor change, but someone (Marokai?) on the Game Reform panel - whatever happened to that, BTW? - suggested implementing a legal framework for in-party caucuses. Given that the game has recently trended towards having two large and fairly diverse political parties, I think this would add an interesting element of back room skulduggery and intrigue to a game that needs it.

Marokai quit and it basically dissolved. 

That's a shame. I wonder if there'd be some benefits to setting up a kind of unofficial reform panel... Atlasia always needs more think tanks.

*ponders, chews nicotine gum*

[Cincinnatus]

This is a very minor change, but someone (Marokai?) on the Game Reform panel - whatever happened to that, BTW? - suggested implementing a legal framework for in-party caucuses. Given that the game has recently trended towards having two large and fairly diverse political parties, I think this would add an interesting element of back room skulduggery and intrigue to a game that needs it.

Marokai quit and it basically dissolved. 

That's a shame. I wonder if there'd be some benefits to setting up a kind of unofficial reform panel... Atlasia always needs more think tanks.

*ponders, chews nicotine gum*

We could co-operate in creating a PAC for reform...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What this game needs is a really good five-cent cigar

[Napoleon]

Caucuses could create tensions within a party, presumably Marokai's ultimate goal IMO.

[Oakvale]

Caucuses could create tensions within a party, presumably Marokai's ultimate goal IMO.

I don't think tension inside a party's necessarily a bad thing. One man's tension is another man's debate, or, uh, something.

[Fritz]

RE-REGIONING PROPOSAL

I would propose that regions be re-drawn on a set date every calendar year, based on Census data as of that date.

Rules:
1. All states within each region must be contiguous.
2. All regions must contain between 18% and 22% of total population, or as close as is possible to satisfy the first rule.

Let's use the current Census data as an example.  Atlasia has 140 residents, so each region must have 26-30 residents.

Northeast: The 6 New England states have 24. The only bordering state is New York, which has 10. 24 is closer to 26-30 than 34 is, so the Northeast has to be the New England states only.

Mideast: Grabbing the leftovers from the Northeast (NY, NJ, PA, DE) makes 21. Add MD, VA, and WV, there is 30.

Midwest: Leftovers from the old Mideast (IL, IN, KY, MI, MO, OH, WI) is 18. Add MN and IA to get 31, and subtract MO to land at 28.

South: Current IDS plus MO is 26.

West: (rather than "Pacific") Everything left from the Midwest plus the Pacific is 32. Give one of the Dakotas back, and both land at 30.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I think internal caucuses need to be left to the party. While they could make it interesting, they would also lead to bitter battles and eventual breakup of parties. Of course, some may view that as a good thing.

My post wasn't meant to critique the ideas. I have always been an advocate of reforms that make sense, not just reforms for the sake of reforms. I was just curious about how we can give everyone in Atlasia a position while also taking power away from regions.

One reform I support and continue to support is allowing regions to elect their own senators. While I agree it would result in lower turnout for regional senate seats initially, I think down the road, activity within regions would increase and give people more of an opportunity to get involved. When that begins to happen, we will have a much more vibrant game. Removing regional senate seats would just be a step back.

Beside, Snowguy, not everyone can handle being beholden to the entire population. You and I are just lucky to be as tough as we are...

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a very minor change, but someone (Marokai?) on the Game Reform panel - whatever happened to that, BTW? - suggested implementing a legal framework for in-party caucuses. Given that the game has recently trended towards having two large and fairly diverse political parties, I think this would add an interesting element of back room skulduggery and intrigue to a game that needs it.

I proposed that, yes. (With belgiansocialist concurring.)

Caucuses could create tensions within a party, presumably Marokai's ultimate goal IMO.

Though I appreciate your apparently very high opinion of my mischief and cunning, but yeah, obviously it's partially to create inner-party politics, as Bgwah suggested he wanted to see more of the game drift toward. With formal caucuses and legally mandated party primaries for office, our parties could actually have proper factions, like actual political parties do, instead of becoming these huge super-big-tent behemoths that the JCP and RPP both are, frankly.

Creating some element of inner-party politics is obviously going to cause some debate within a party, that is an unavoidable hazard of the proposals. If it wasn't going to be an interesting and unpredictable idea that could make things more varied, no one would be proposing it.

We need to stop seeing any of our reforms through a political prism. Right-wingers shouldn't oppose national initiatives just because they don't have as many members as left-wingers, and left-wingers shouldn't oppose the infrastructure for inner-party politics just because you're afraid it might create divides. We're never going to accomplish anything if everyone is too afraid to rock the boat purely for partisan reasons.

[Sbane]

I really like the idea of national initiatives. Maybe have a higher threshold like 55 or 60 or even better, 58%.

And the idea of caucuses within the party is interesting as well. So the JCP could have a more economic left wing and a more moderate wing on economics (we are mostly socially liberal afaik). In the RPP, there could be a more socially liberal wing vs a socially conservative wing. The socially liberal wing might be a defacto libertarian wing, though without the purity test.

Just a few thoughts. Some good ideas here. Redistricting might be interesting too....

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Again, more rudeness in the thread even.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I really like the idea of national initiatives. Maybe have a higher threshold like 55 or 60 or even better, 58%.

And the idea of caucuses within the party is interesting as well. So the JCP could have a more economic left wing and a more moderate wing on economics (we are mostly socially liberal afaik). In the RPP, there could be a more socially liberal wing vs a socially conservative wing. The socially liberal wing might be a defacto libertarian wing, though without the purity test.

Just a few thoughts. Some good ideas here. Redistricting might be interesting too....

Back around late 2010, there was a cropping up of caucuses within the RPP, however they didn't last. I was actually somewhat favorable to the idea, thought it might even increase unity by clarifying the differences rather then having them spontanesouly surface surprising some who didn't quite realize the RPP's diversity on some issues.