ScottSurveys: The Regional Restructuring Amendment of 2012

[Napoleon]

I would still like Romney see Yankee explain his argument here.

[CatoMinor]

It is the Imperial Dominion of the South

[Pingvin]

Negative because it doesn't adds MO, AZ and NM to IDS.

[Frodo]

It seems most of the objections center on the number of senators in the legislature -as opposed to which state should be in this or that region, which is my primary area of interest here. It shouldn't be too difficult then just to change the Midwest's current regional senator into another at-large senator.  I like the state configuration of this proposal, so as long as that doesn't change, I'm perfectly content with whatever compromise is reached.  

[Yelnoc]

Wow, I really managed to get everyone's fur up, didn't I?  I don't see how reducing the number of senate seats by two would hurt anything, because two of the ten senators are always inactive, but if that is oh so important than how about we fill the other two seats through a third method?  The purpose of reducing the number of senate seats is merely to retain the balance between regional and at-large seats, but that does not preclude a third method from being introduced.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Positive, considering I originated it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That shouldn't be much of a concern since you could just move states like many others have. I actually like that aspect of the proposal, it is reducing the number of Senators that should be a dealbreaker. I am surprised Yankee would advocate something this damaging to the Senate.

Also, according to the Constitution, each state affected has to vote on whether or not to accept the move to a different region. So Virginia could just as easily veto the atleast their portion of the map. 

For the 100th time, who the hell said I advocated this? You clearly don't understand my policy for introducing constituent legislation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It seems most of the objections center on the number of senators in the legislature -as opposed to which state should be in this or that region, which is my primary area of interest here. It shouldn't be too difficult then just to change the Midwest's current regional senator into another at-large senator.  I like the state configuration of this proposal, so as long as that doesn't change, I'm perfectly content with whatever compromise is reached.  

I think that is because it hits people on issues that are of most importance to them and thus the "Senate implications" are the center of disagreement. It is my opinion that were they to be resolved somehow, that the adjustments in boundaries would prove the most difficult to achieve, precisely because of the requirement that all of these states being moved have to approve the change.

I brought this up for two reasons. The first is because I requested by a constituent (Yelnoc) to introduce a map. It actually started out with him pming me a map. After consultations with him, through which he provided a framwork of what he desired, I formulated the text around that framework and introduced it (three days late, unfortunately ). My policy has been that if a constituent provides a complete text or the basic points to be made into a text, I will introduce it as desired, regardless of whether I support it or not.

The second is because of what has happened in the Midwest and Pacific. Something has to be done and discussions had to be commenced around a text, not a thread full of jumbled maps and expressions of prefered arrangements. We have done that before and ended up with nothing.

The problem with changing a Regional Senator in to an At-Large Senator is that we would go from 5-5 to 4-6. In my view it would be the equivalent of turning the US Senate into a House of Lords (or at least put it on the path to being such) with some of the legislating being shifted to the House of Representatives. The purpose of having both and in equal numbers in Atlasia is so that regional interests can check popular interests, without needing a bicarmeral legislature that we clearly couldn't sustain, just like the states check the interests of the popular majority in the US Congress with the Senate and House. Unlike the US Senate, we are not dysfunctional and nearly every reform desired has eventually been passed and typically by wide margins like "Fritzcare", which passed 8-2. The largest and most sweeping of the financial reforms were passed by yours truly, which were so tough that Marokai Blue thought they went to far on liquidity requirements. And unlike the US House which has been corrupted by gerrymandering and malaportionment, the At-Large seats do a good job at representing the popular majority. There were some in the former Regional Protection Party who wanted to make the Senate all Regional seats. I opposed this change unless a second chamber with an equal say in the legislative process was possible to represent the nationwide popular majority.

[TJ in Oregon]

We could have 4 regional seats, 5 at-large seats, and make the VP a senator. Or if we don't like the even number, have 4 regional seats, 4 at-large seats, and make the VP a senator.

[Pingvin]

10 regional and VP!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We could have 4 regional seats, 5 at-large seats, and make the VP a senator. Or if we don't like the even number, have 4 regional seats, 4 at-large seats, and make the VP a senator.

Such an alternative may be possible.

10 regional and VP!

Just as bad as 10 At-Large, but from the opposite direction. 50-50 or bicameralism.

[Napoleon]

Wow, I really managed to get everyone's fur up, didn't I?  I don't see how reducing the number of senate seats by two would hurt anything, because two of the ten senators are always inactive, but if that is oh so important than how about we fill the other two seats through a third method?  The purpose of reducing the number of senate seats is merely to retain the balance between regional and at-large seats, but that does not preclude a third method from being introduced.

Which two Senators are inactive? Be specific. And what makes you think two of eight Senators wouldn't be inactive? Don't you see how bad that is for the Senate? Maybe a third method would work but I don't see the point of going through with an amendment that essentially kills at large senate elections. 4 seats 2 left 2 right 0 fun.

[Pingvin]

10 regional and VP!

Just as bad as 10 At-Large, but from the opposite direction. 50-50 or bicameralism.
[/quote]
Under my plan: 3 regions, 6 senators + VP.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

10 regional and VP!

Just as bad as 10 At-Large, but from the opposite direction. 50-50 or bicameralism.

Under my plan: 3 regions, 6 senators + VP.

Under that system Napoleon would have case that the NE is treated unfairly and the number of seats would have to be apportioned based on population. Unless you have body or an arrangement that gives the popular majority an equal say in the legislative process, then you are indeed screwing the largest region.

[TJ in Oregon]

Negative (Mideast)

I'm not oppposed to restructuring, but this proposed map really tears up my region unnecessarily. Under this proposal half the new Mideast region will be previously from other regions, more so than any of the other new regions including the Pacific, especially considering the Pacific's inability to hold regularly scheduled elections is the main reason we are still discussing this.

[ZuWo]

The idea behind the amendment is commendable since it is obvious that the Pacific and the Midwest cannot continue like this. Something must be changed. At the same time, there's no need to break a region like the Mideast apart, which is why I am opposed to the current form of the amendment and any other plan that tries to alter the shape of the Mideast. I'm not even sure whether I have any say in this affair as the Governor of a region that would be affected by this change, but if I do I will not put my signature under such a proposal.

My idea: Just form one new region out of the current Pacific and Midwest region and, most importantly, get rid of this general Assembly or Althing stuff or however you want to call it, because this kills the fun of legislating on the regional level. Create an Assembly with elected members, it works pretty well in the three regions that have it.

But if you want, reduce the number of Senators to 8. That's more than enough!

[tmthforu94]

It was said earlier - I'd be open to 4 regional, 5 at-large, and the VP all serving as Senators.

[Yelnoc]

To Mideasterners: I suppose I can understand why you might be up in arms about this.  My thinking was that combining the Pacific and Midwest would make a region too large geographically, so the Mideast ought to get a slice.  But then to balance it out population-wise (because the majority of the MW population is concentrated in those eastern states) we needed to chop some traditional Mideastern states off.  I would be open to alternative map suggestions though, I just wanted to move discussion out of this board and into the Government board.

Which two Senators are inactive? Be specific.

I was thinking along the lines of BRTD and then MOP.  There are also some senators that don't debate much but show up to vote and No, I'm not going to be specific.  I'm not going to be the asshole that calls someone out for not participating in a fantasy game when they have things going on in the real world.

And what makes you think two of eight Senators wouldn't be inactive?

That's not what I said.  I said two of ten are usually inactive to an extant.  Simple logic would indicate that if you cut the seats down to 8 then the percentage of inactive senators should decrease because with less seats, competition will be fiercer and (one would hope) the candidates with the most active campaigns would get in.

Maybe a third method would work but I don't see the point of going through with an amendment that essentially kills at large senate elections. 4 seats 2 left 2 right 0 fun.

I'm sorry, but how would removing ONE At-Large senate seat kill at-large elections?  Would it make them MORE competitive?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

It was said earlier - I'd be open to 4 regional, 5 at-large, and the VP all serving as Senators.

Which becomes 4 regional, 6 at-large, given how we elect a VP.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Extraordinarily negative. Stop trying to tear up the structure of the regions and just go back to a form of redistricting, ffs.

[Napoleon]

Extraordinarily negative. Stop trying to tear up the structure of the regions and just go back to a form of redistricting, ffs.

The problem is with the ability of regions (mostly MW and Pacific) to actually govern so redistricting wouldn't really solve anything. What would be more interesting IMO is to let people vote in two regions. You would have a primary region to run for office in and a secondary region as a voter only. A bit out there but it could actually make things more fun, competitive and all that other good stuff.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yelnoc, did you make a map of this? It's hard for me to judge without seeing it geographically.

[Frodo]

I think you're referring to this map made by the Frenchman:

I'd have thought of this, for the sake of geographic consistency :

At all costs, I want Virginia and Kentucky at least to be in the South.  The rest I don't care as much for. 

[ilikeverin]

Extremely negative.  I have no idea what is up with everyone wanting to destroy the Midwest.  At the very least, people should realize that the current Midwestern and Pacifican streak of inactivity is a symptom of an underlying problem, not an issue in-and-of-itself.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Extremely negative.  I have no idea what is up with everyone wanting to destroy the Midwest.  At the very least, people should realize that the current Midwestern and Pacifican streak of inactivity is a symptom of an underlying problem, not an issue in-and-of-itself.

that underlying problem being?