Office of Senator Napoleon

[Napoleon]

Tonight I introduced to the Senate a Constitutional Amendment which is bound to be controversial but that I believe is a debate worth having. I would appreciate it if we can avoid any demagogic reaction and instead come to the table to engage in a respectful and open-minded discussion. Please allow me the opportunity to inform you why I have decided to introduce an amendment that will add 5 new senators elected by districts.

This is an idea I have had floating around in the back of my head since I first learned of districts. In the "Let's Make the VP a Senator" debate, I mentioned that if we are going to add to the Senate, there are more interesting ways to go about it. Most of us weren't around when districts were a part of the game but I believe the concept is fascinating if used in conjunction with the current methods of election.

First things first, so I will start with the obvious. Atlasia is rapidly growing. This is a good thing. Regions are thriving, activity is improving, elections are pretty exciting and its increasingly difficult to decide who to vote for. Now I know what you will say: We're growing, but that doesn't mean we should expand the Senate. You will only take away good people from other positions. I disagree! Atlasia is growing because of the opportunities available. Regional legislatures and competition have made once dead regions like the Pacific and Midwest come full circle. As we allow more opportunities to participate in the game, we become a stronger nation and a more exciting game. The Senate is seen by many, and perhaps rightfully so, as the heart of the game. It becomes discouraging to have restrictive upward mobility in a game this competitive and demanding.

As I stated above, the Senate is often seen as the heart of the game. Pre-dissolution I often complained that my party, the JCP (and maybe the RPP but I wasn't so concerned with their party operations), was too focused on the federal government and did not place enough importance on the regions. With this amendment, Regional Executives will have a limited influence on the federal government similar to the House of Representatives. I don't foresee crazy gerrymandering but I believe that parties will be more concerned with regional executive elections if it influences the Senate. This increased competition will be good for the regions.The redistricting process will add a new, interesting and dynamic layer to Atlasian politics that will spice up the game.

With a more diverse set of viewpoints, our policy making will improve. Too often the Senate seems like it is a restrictive club that only a few people have the opportunity to reach. The Senate will be more open and more representative. Ideally, thee more Senators we havve, the more they can communicate with their constituents, building an even more informed and more involved republic.

Is more elections really a bad thing? This is an elections game, after all. As long as there are good people willing to run, we should encourage this. I believe those people are here in Atlasia, waiting in the wings, or somewhere on the forum yet to register.

Atlasia has changed dramatically over the last year, two years. We aren't the same country anymore: why keep pretending? A ten member Senate is ideal for 120 people and two parties. With nearly 200 people and four major parties, we are doing it wrong. We are not taking advantage of the opportunities that dissolution has opened up for Atlasia. We have the chance to see parties become more than just GOTV machines and groups of friends. With an expanded Senate, look to see possible coalition governments, more bipartisan proposals, and other fun stuff.

The Senate need not feel threatened by opening our legislature to more people. We could really use the help. With the increased success and prominence of committees, we can diversify and improve them by having a larger pool to choose from. We will truly get the most out of our committees when we have more Senators knowledgeable and interested in any given field. With 15 instead of 10, committees will thrive.

Last things last: imagine the cool new GriffGraphs!

I'm looking forward to having a nice debate on this.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If not this exactly, this kind of reform is exactly what I'd like to see.  It might be time to add a layer of complexity to the game.  We have enough people.  Let's at least get the discussion started!

[Maxwell]

I like this idea. I'll try to think it over more to see if I have any questions that could help the discussion of the amendment.

[Napoleon]

Thank you for your interest in the proposal, Snowguy and Maxwell. For the viewing pleasure of the casual Atlasian, I will post select district maps I found on the Wiki.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'm certainly interested. 10 Senators has honestly always seemed like too few, and I do like the concept of implementing redistricting into the game.

[bore]

I also like this idea, but if we're doing districts we should probably limit the amount of inter state moves you can make.

[Napoleon]

I also like this idea, but if we're doing districts we should probably limit the amount of inter state moves you can make.

That's the last clause in the amendment.

Good catch though because we can't have people moving from state to state trying to rig an election.

[Napoleon]

Here is the full text:

 

The Let's Really Make Things Interesting Amendment


Article 1 is amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV is amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V is amended as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

I am happy to announce that Senator Franzl has joined as a cosponsor.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm totally on board with expanding the Senate to 15 members as I always have been but I've always been wary of a return to redistricting. The devil is always in the details.

Redistricting was eliminated in the first place because it became obvious that there was basically almost nothing you could do with the borders after a certain amount of time, and that they eventually just became de-facto regional boundaries. Those maps you posted are fine district ideas, but they're also basically the district boundary ideas; there's not much more you can do with them aside that, and the emphasis on contiguity and inviting regional governments in on the process only inevitably means the districts will be even less ambitious. That was the devilishly ironic flaw of redistricting; the redistricting process itself actually became quite boring.

And while it's a great idea to 'get more people involved in the process' this is often more of a campaign line than anything that ever actually happens; because for that to happen people like you and me actually need to get our asses out of the way and let them have a seat at the table. Look at this special election's candidates: Snowguy (oldtimer) Kalwejt (oldtimer) Fezzy (oldtimer) Clarence (at least, relatively, new), and all of them have been in the Senate before. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, inherently, but where are these new people? Where are these folks looking to break into the Senate, fighting to get their chance? The only newbie I can think that recently had time in the Senate was Spamage, and he couldn't speak three words without needing scripts.

I'm sympathetic to all these ideas, but as with everyone, I feel skeptical. There's good ideas here that I hope work through kinks in debate.

[Napoleon]

I actually am still considering adding a clause to the amendment that district boundaries are not to resemble regions, but there wouldn't be any enforcement mechanism. Still, I think that if you can get behind giving the 20-person Midwest two Senate seats, you could probably support giving a 35-person district that somewhat resembles the Midwest that seat instead. The Save Our States initiative makes this a lot more feasible. It seems that in a more sparsely populated Atlasia, voters were concentrated in a few states. That isn't the case anymore and we ought to take advantage.

I understand what you are saying about old-timers. The honest truth is that in a ten member Senate, your really limit yourself to people that have been here a long time. Its very rare to see a newcomer defeat a veteran in this game, I actually can't think of any race where the newcomer won since I defeated you. However, eventually you run out of old-timers Marokai. I see people like Superique, Gass, TexasDem, Goldwater, and others that are in some ways shut out from participating in the Senate for some reason or another. Do we expect people to just sit around in regional legislatures for a year hoping that someone decides to give them a turn?? And if people realize they have more of an opportunity to move onto the Senate, is it possible that they will do a better job and be more active at the regional level?

You will have people complain about districts being boring, or you will have people complain about gerrymandering. I think we can strike a balance. I'd be willing to entertain lowering the requirement of executives to a simple majority, if that would be seen as beneficial but I don't expect a new generation of Atlasians to repeat the mistakes of the past. Ideally we would learn from them.

[Napoleon]

To continue on some of my earlier points, I don't envision the five new seats as simply being for new members or anything like that. I think we could see old timers running for seats from districts and opening up the at large seats for more candidates, there's a lot of cool things that could come out of this amendment. The thing about a district is that a Senator doesn't really know who his constituents are going to be the next time around.

I think the possibilities this amendment would bring to the Senate, our elections, regional executives, and political parties could shake things up in a way that makes the game more fun but doesn't change things so much as to cause problems. It is something we've done before, handled a bit differently and more suitable to the circumstances of the present than it was to the past.

And for the skeptics, I'll point out that if it doesn't work, it can be undone. I think it will work, but when the system got stagnant, districts were removed and replaced with at-large seats. I'm only okay with districts in conjunction with the current set up.

[Napoleon]

An example of five districts using today's population:

They don't have to resemble regions, and they shouldn't!

[Goldwater]

I like the idea behind this bill, but I think that time you're allowed to switch states should lowered to 90 days. IMO changing states still won't be as big of a deal as changing regions, because the only that could change is your Class C Senator, rather than changing your Class A Senator, Regional Executive, and Regional Legislators.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The amendment has my full support, although I'd prefer districts be continuous.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I think these are all fine ideas...I agree that the Senate is the hotbed of activity here and expanding it would be a good way to include more people

[Napoleon]

The amendment has my full support, although I'd prefer districts be continuous.

I did not change that part from how districts were created before. I am assuming it is mainly to prevent New York from creating a population bottleneck.

[Napoleon]

I have introduced an amendment to hold our officeholders accountable and to encourage activity...I think this is something we are able to agree on.

Speaking of activity, I have been one of the most active Senators and have legislation in the queue that I want to be in the Senate for. It looks like it will take longer than the current session to get to, so I will be seeking another term. If you want a pragmatic Senator that can work with anyone, vote for me! I await your love, praise, and adoration.

More to come.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think adding a class of senators based on districts is a great idea.  You'd still have ample regional representation as well as at-large representation.. both important in capturing regional issues as well as national ones... but it would also bring more equal representation to the senate since districts would be uniformly populated.

Right now, the Midwest has more representation than it's population size should allow... but when we have a 3rd class of senators based on population size, it kind of removes some of the unfair advantage while still maintaining good regional representation.

You could always just add a clause that ensures that each district includes at least one state outside of any 1 region... so that each district crosses regional lines.. but it doesn't make the process of redistricting so impossible as to be unfeasible.

[bore]

The amendment has my full support, although I'd prefer districts be continuous.

I did not change that part from how districts were created before. I am assuming it is mainly to prevent New York from creating a population bottleneck.

Yeah, if districts had to be contiguous then new england and new york would have to be in the same seat, and as they currently have 37 voters in them, you'd basically be guaranteed one seat that was always that.

[Napoleon]

Citizens,

I come before you today to draw your attention to a trend that has brought me strong disappoint. Senators who we have elected are failing us. Don't let your Senators get away without participating in debate and then voting against something. If you support me, if you support the President, if you are the President, if you want a Senate that has fruitful debates, if you support the Empowering Regions in Federal Elections amendment, if you're on the fence on the amendment and want to hear each side, if you oppose the amendment but don't approve of this behavior: LET YOUR SENATORS KNOW AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. This is not what the Senate was meant to be. Do not let your representation hide their feelings from you and tell them you want them to be parliamentary- to participate and to give their fellow Senators an opportunity to explain something they might be concerned with.

We hear people complain about game reform being difficult- now you know why. Help us put a stop to this.

[Napoleon]

Don't let your Senators get away without participating in debate and then voting against something.

For that matter, don't let your Senators get away with failing to participate and then voting for something without a thought. How a Senator votes doesn't mean a damn thing if he or she is not participating in debate.

I agree but the Nay vote is more significant. I don't appreciate my time being wasted like this.

[Napoleon]

To clarify,  I am not accusing Senator Nix of not participating in the debate or having malicious intent. My anger is largely a result of Senator X's vote but I use deliberately vague language because this is not about him and only him. Any Senators who haven't voted that this applied to, I am speaking about you also. I am not going to get into the business of singling people out and making things personal but I will make my feelings about this known and hopefully you will too.

And in the interest of making my criticism more constructive, on Nix's gun bill I apologized for my limited participation (and will participate more before I vote) and Senator Oakvale recently issued an apology for inactivity. There is a better way to do things.

[homelycooking]

I oppose the Empowering Regions in Federal Elections amendment. As things stand, I am the one responsible for administering federal elections - if something goes wrong, I can and should be held accountable. I don't know how I can carry out my duty as SoFE to ensure a fair and consistent election experience for all of Atlasia's voters if regional legislatures, governors and "Federal Officer[s ] of the Executive Branch" are given the authority to run Class A Senate and Presidential elections.

Obviously I am not a Senator, and have no right to demand amendments to proposed legislation, but I would have liked to be consulted about an amendment that has the potential to dramatically redefine my role and duty as SoFE.  

[Napoleon]

Respectfully, I think your description is a little loose about what the amendment would do. The changes would not be so drastic.

I do apologize for not consulting you. I mistakenly assumed that the Presidents support also meant his Cabinet's support. Still, there is no excuse for the debate on the bill. I called for a vote after discussion ended and the PPT so kindly gave Senators another full say to raise concerns or resume discussion. They did not.