New Unicameral-Subregional Plan Proposal

[Oakvale]

It's an interesting plan, but I don't understand why the proposed unicameral Senate is so large. Eighteen members? I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange. We should be decreasing the number of federal offices, not increasing it.

The sub-regional idea is intriguing but seems administratively difficult. If we're getting into this kind of detail why is it assumed that at-large seats are a good idea at all?

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

[YE]

Most voters paste ballots they’re sent from GOTVers guys. Let’s not make up problems to hinder an actual reform effort.

[Oakvale]

Most voters paste ballots they’re sent from GOTVers guys. Let’s not make up problems to hinder an actual reform effort.

Do we think this is a good thing that should be maintained? Or is putting a spanner in the works of copy & paste ballots a feature, rather than a bug, of this proposal?

[SevenEleven]

It's an interesting plan, but I don't understand why the proposed unicameral Senate is so large. Eighteen members? I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange. We should be decreasing the number of federal offices, not increasing it.

The sub-regional idea is intriguing but seems administratively difficult. If we're getting into this kind of detail why is it assumed that at-large seats are a good idea at all?

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

There's a need to appease certain people that makes optimal solutions difficult. I'll leave it at that.

[Former President tack50]

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

I will note that pre-reset, when pre-filled ballots didn't exist/were uncommon and regional elections were all in the same federal ballot, voters didn't have an issue with this. I don't expect them to have issues now either

[Lumine]

Congratulations for those responsible for both developing a reform plan and gathering what seems like a reasonable collection of individuals in favor, both of which are never easy to accomplish.

Personally I have serious doubts that a 18-member Congress is desirable or even sustainable in the current context, and I certainly hope the reason behind this isn't just so we have the same number of regional and at-large seats. Subregional seats are an inspired idea that may make it easier for a larger variety of players to be represented in Nyman, though I suppose the exact details will mean a lot in terms of whether it works out.

Don't know if it's the right way to go and I would dispute the notion that some of the bills that have been killed recently deserved to become law, but I look forward to the eventual debate to see how this is fleshed out.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How will At-Large Senate vacancies be handled, will there be special elections like there was pre-reset, or will it be filled via party appointment?

I don't expect much change to way the at-large seats are handled. The appointment procedure actually originated pre-reset in a limited form for At-large Senate seats, I think from Adam IIRC in 2014 I think. That was for last portion of the term. This was merely extended to the whole term for most cases with the exceptions being independents at the time of the reset in 2016.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Another question - if this is theoretically passed and implemented for the June elections, would it trigger a special election for all seats, or would the subregional seats not be elected until August?

You would have to hold an election for all of the seats similar to 2016 with June being the optimal time to do it.

[Continential]

Could there be Senate Committees like there was pre-reset?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Congratulations for those responsible for both developing a reform plan and gathering what seems like a reasonable collection of individuals in favor, both of which are never easy to accomplish.

The discussions were initiated back some weeks in March I think but my RL issues health and otherwise delayed things considerably unfortunately.

I think Sestak's approach was to get the people most likely to be opposed and get them on board with a plan, which is the way to do this as I said before. Just like with the Duke Plan in 2013 and how it eventually became the model with minor changes for the 2015/2016 con-con.

Personally I have serious doubts that a 18-member Congress is desirable or even sustainable in the current context, and I certainly hope the reason behind this isn't just so we have the same number of regional and at-large seats. Subregional seats are an inspired idea that may make it easier for a larger variety of players to be represented in Nyman, though I suppose the exact details will mean a lot in terms of whether it works out.

The chamber size is one of my biggest concerns but the objective here is to kind of undue the negative effect of consolidation on Senate (basically a functional 2-1 Labor Gerrymander) and the only way to do that is to add Regional Senate seats with different boundaries from the current ones, hence the sub regions existence.  

If you cut at-large seats to compensate, it ups the quota to unfathomable levels to the point where the machines would be even more dominate.

If you cut Senate seats, it makes the very problem this is aimed at solving worse. The fewer seats you have, the more dominant and advantage the majority will become because there are fewer gradiants nationally for House seats and fewer places the Labor machine needs to scientifically manage regionally (functional gerrymander mentioned above).

Don't know if it's the right way to go and I would dispute the notion that some of the bills that have been killed recently deserved to become law, but I look forward to the eventual debate to see how this is fleshed out.

Bicameralism can have a very positive effect at weeding out garbage bills.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's an interesting plan, but I don't understand why the proposed unicameral Senate is so large. Eighteen members? I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange.

The current term length differentials are derived from the desire to minimally change the At-Large seats since the more you change, the more you risk deriving opposition. That said there could be a case to be made for lengthening At-large terms, and one against it even separate and apart from this.

At the end of the day it is all down to what we choose to get hung up over. You can choose to see them all as "the same" or you can choose to see them as "At-large" and "Regional" Senators. Perhaps we should even give them those names officially to differentiate them. You could even keep calling them "People's Representatives". At the end of the day I don't think it functionally harms the proposal if the term lengths vary.

We should be decreasing the number of federal offices, not increasing it.

What is gained by reducing officers in isolation from the other considerations. Reducing House seats would shut out indies and third parties by raising the quota, reducing Senate seats relative to the plan much less to the current arrangement would actually worsen one of the critical problems that this proposal seeks to solve, that is make the Senate more competitive.

Myopically focusing on a single variable irregardless of the big picture and various issues at stake is necessarily going to miss the mark in solving those issues.

The sub-regional idea is intriguing but seems administratively difficult. If we're getting into this kind of detail why is it assumed that at-large seats are a good idea at all?

There really isn't a problem from the perspective of At-large save for the high quota, but the only way to lower that is to add even more offices.

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

One of the indirect objectives of this is to move away from the kind of "machine micromange the regions system", first off with the limits on strategic registration in the proposal that is being largely overlooked. Beyond that the objective, even if indirect, would be to move more towards a more informed and less spoon fed voting base. I think everyone from MB, to Lumine to Leinad is desiring to achieve that and as I said no reform alone is going to 100% flip a switch but curtailing the kind of "Windjammerian Scientific Management of the Regions" would be one of the impacts of this proposal and at least start us on the road to a different environment in regards to the informed voter v. zombie situation that everyone is so concerned about.

There are two key components of that:
1. Restricting the strategic Registration
2. Implementing the sub regions

They work hand in hand.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Could there be Senate Committees like there was pre-reset?

Oakvale would start burning people at the stake.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

I will note that pre-reset, when pre-filled ballots didn't exist/were uncommon and regional elections were all in the same federal ballot, voters didn't have an issue with this. I don't expect them to have issues now either

You are going to have issues initially, especially with the zombies obviously. But most people who play this game aren't stupid. They can be extremely lazy, but most of them can figure out how to open a google sheet and read a color coded map.

Also let's be honest, their will be plenty of "help" from various sources, be it candidates seeking to win, parties seeking to win etc.

[YE]

Most voters paste ballots they’re sent from GOTVers guys. Let’s not make up problems to hinder an actual reform effort.

Do we think this is a good thing that should be maintained? Or is putting a spanner in the works of copy & paste ballots a feature, rather than a bug, of this proposal?

It's a bug but it's also a reality.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

I will note that pre-reset, when pre-filled ballots didn't exist/were uncommon and regional elections were all in the same federal ballot, voters didn't have an issue with this. I don't expect them to have issues now either

You are going to have issues initially, especially with the zombies obviously. But most people who play this game aren't stupid. They can be extremely lazy, but most of them can figure out how to open a google sheet and read a color coded map.

Also let's be honest, their will be plenty of "help" from various sources, be it candidates seeking to win, parties seeking to win etc.

Can confirm.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Most voters paste ballots they’re sent from GOTVers guys. Let’s not make up problems to hinder an actual reform effort.

Do we think this is a good thing that should be maintained? Or is putting a spanner in the works of copy & paste ballots a feature, rather than a bug, of this proposal?

No one proposal is going to solve every problem.

Just cutting offices will not solve every problem, anymore then Republicans IRL think they can tax cut their way to solving any given economic problem.

Even if we move away from copy-paste, you still going to have Party GOTV. We had GOTV for years before copy/paste became accepted and we had changes in voting systems in multiple regional legislatures etc.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's an interesting plan, but I don't understand why the proposed unicameral Senate is so large. Eighteen members? I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange. We should be decreasing the number of federal offices, not increasing it.

The sub-regional idea is intriguing but seems administratively difficult. If we're getting into this kind of detail why is it assumed that at-large seats are a good idea at all?

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

There's a need to appease certain people that makes optimal solutions difficult. I'll leave it at that.

"Everyone want's their reform, but no one wants your reform". Its a tale as old as time, and when you get ten people into a room and then each finds one thing to walk away over that differs from the other nine, you come out with a blank sheet of paper and the status quo.

You have to decide what you are prioritizing and what you are willing to offer in return for it.

[SevenEleven]

It's an interesting plan, but I don't understand why the proposed unicameral Senate is so large. Eighteen members? I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange. We should be decreasing the number of federal offices, not increasing it.

The sub-regional idea is intriguing but seems administratively difficult. If we're getting into this kind of detail why is it assumed that at-large seats are a good idea at all?

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

There's a need to appease certain people that makes optimal solutions difficult. I'll leave it at that.

"Everyone want's their reform, but no one wants your reform". Its a tale as old as time, and when you get ten people into a room and then each finds one thing to walk away over that differs from the other nine, you come out with a blank sheet of paper and the status quo.

You have to decide what you are prioritizing and what you are willing to offer in return for it.

It's more a matter of getting ten people in a room and one person threatens to walk away unless. The other nine are flexible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's an interesting plan, but I don't understand why the proposed unicameral Senate is so large. Eighteen members? I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange. We should be decreasing the number of federal offices, not increasing it.

The sub-regional idea is intriguing but seems administratively difficult. If we're getting into this kind of detail why is it assumed that at-large seats are a good idea at all?

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

There's a need to appease certain people that makes optimal solutions difficult. I'll leave it at that.

"Everyone want's their reform, but no one wants your reform". Its a tale as old as time, and when you get ten people into a room and then each finds one thing to walk away over that differs from the other nine, you come out with a blank sheet of paper and the status quo.

You have to decide what you are prioritizing and what you are willing to offer in return for it.

It's more a matter of getting ten people in a room and one person threatens to walk away unless. The other nine are flexible.

Generally speaking if you want something say, eliminating something that the other side is documented repeatedly to support 100%, it is standard practice to offer something serious in return. 

I think we might be referring to different things though.

The only threat to walk that I can remember was not over the underlying arrangement, largely because the discussions started with the sub region plan from the outset. 

[SevenEleven]

It's an interesting plan, but I don't understand why the proposed unicameral Senate is so large. Eighteen members? I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange. We should be decreasing the number of federal offices, not increasing it.

The sub-regional idea is intriguing but seems administratively difficult. If we're getting into this kind of detail why is it assumed that at-large seats are a good idea at all?

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

There's a need to appease certain people that makes optimal solutions difficult. I'll leave it at that.

"Everyone want's their reform, but no one wants your reform". Its a tale as old as time, and when you get ten people into a room and then each finds one thing to walk away over that differs from the other nine, you come out with a blank sheet of paper and the status quo.

You have to decide what you are prioritizing and what you are willing to offer in return for it.

It's more a matter of getting ten people in a room and one person threatens to walk away unless. The other nine are flexible.

Generally speaking if you want something say, eliminating something that the other side is documented repeatedly to support 100%, it is standard practice to offer something serious in return. 

I think we might be referring to different things though.

The only threat to walk that I can remember was not over the underlying arrangement, largely because the discussions started with the sub region plan from the outset. 

In the end it works out positively. I think most of us are compromising in some way or another. I'm sympathetic to arguments that we may overextend the federal legislature too far. I think two regional senators per region and nine at-large seats works out better.

[Dr. MB]

[quote auIt'sthor=Oakvale link=topic=439605.msg8053101#msg8053101 date=1618773382 uid=3578]
It's an interesting plan, but I don't understand why the proposed unicameral Senate is so large. Eighteen members? I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange. We should be decreasing the number of federal offices, not increasing it.

The sub-regional idea is intriguing but seems administratively difficult. If we're getting into this kind of detail why is it assumed that at-large seats are a good idea at all?

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

There's a need to appease certain people that makes optimal solutions difficult. I'll leave it at that.

"Everyone want's their reform, but no one wants your reform". Its a tale as old as time, and when you get ten people into a room and then each finds one thing to walk away over that differs from the other nine, you come out with a blank sheet of paper and the status quo.

You have to decide what you are prioritizing and what you are willing to offer in return for it.

It's more a matter of getting ten people in a room and one person threatens to walk away unless. The other nine are flexible.

Generally speaking if you want something say, eliminating something that the other side is documented repeatedly to support 100%, it is standard practice to offer something serious in return. 

I think we might be referring to different things though.

The only threat to walk that I can remember was not over the underlying arrangement, largely because the discussions started with the sub region plan from the outset. 

In the end it works out positively. I think most of us are compromising in some way or another. I'm sympathetic to arguments that we may overextend the federal legislature too far. I think two regional senators per region and nine at-large seats works out better.
[/quote]
It's only three more than current. Is that really all that much?

[Continential]

At-Large Senate Elections on-going
« Sent to: RIP Robert H Bork on: April 24, 2010, 01:20:03 PM »
« Bcc: The Trump Virus, Umengus, Brandon H, big bad fab, Queen Mum Inks.LWC, Rowan, hcallega, Farage »
 Reply with quote Reply Remove this message
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=115121.0

Just so you know there is still 34 hours to vote so come out and first preference Duke. He may look in good shape now but that could change later so come out and ram it home. You can preference the other candidates any way you want.

Chairmen Yankee,
Atlasian Force of Liberty
and Conservative Independence
Organization Party.

We only ran one candidate and only had the numbers for one candidate at this time, with the Populares at their height.



This August 2010 - We did have two candidates and the division of such was already pre-determined with the candidates having reached out to said bases already. Party GOTV was to remind them of said endorsements and make sure they knew the election was occurring.

Attention RPP Members: At-Large Election Occur
« Sent to: dead0man on: August 19, 2010, 01:39:48 PM »
« Bcc: MasterJedi, J. J., fezzyfestoon, Queen Mum Inks.LWC, Dan the Roman, hcallega, Vepres, Farage, Vosem »
 Reply with quote Reply Remove this message
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122757.0

Please come out and vote. I would strongly encourage you to vote for either A-Bob or AHduke99 for first preference, and then that you second preference the one you didn't first preference. It is essentiall that we support members of our team. I would also encourage you to third preference AndrewCT.

The RPP voted to endorse the following people:

[1 or 2 ]AHDuke99
[2 or 1 ]A-Bob
[3] AndrewCT
[4] Libertas
[5] Kalwejt


This isn't a binding endorsement, requiring you to vote this way but I would encourage you to vote either Duke, A-Bob, AndrewCT, or A-bob, Duke, AndrewCT at the very least.

Some of you have already endorsed and promised either A-bob or Duke your first preference and I would encourage you to stick with those endorsements and pledges and I ask just that you second preference the other.


Vote Here: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122757.0

Please read the first post carefully before voting.

The election begin at Midnight Thursday August 19th and ends at 11:59 PM Sunday Night August 22th. All times are Eastern Standard Time.

Thank you and Go Vote!!!

NC Yankee
RPP Chairman

I can’t wait for Yankee to send a ballot like this to voters.

[Oakvale]

Are we expecting that each and every voter will know precisely what state they registered in? And which sub-region this falls into? Wait, is this a covert anti-zombie voter measure? Based!

I will note that pre-reset, when pre-filled ballots didn't exist/were uncommon and regional elections were all in the same federal ballot, voters didn't have an issue with this. I don't expect them to have issues now either

That's news to me! Pre-filled ballots may be more ubiquitous now but certainly were common long before our (Great?) Reset.

I guess the way to get around this would simply be for (most) zombie voters to just vote in each sub-regional race and the invalid votes for candidates outside their sub-region are then discarded.

[Sirius_]

I doesn't make sense to reduce the number of federal offices when the game's population is the largest it has ever been. The size of the game is considerably larger than it was when the current system was introduced, so adding seats isn't unfathomable, and taking them away most definitely is. And I have yet to see any instance of reducing seats increasing activity.

[Talleyrand]

I doesn't make sense to reduce the number of federal offices when the game's population is the largest it has ever been. The size of the game is considerably larger than it was when the current system was introduced, so adding seats isn't unfathomable, and taking them away most definitely is. And I have yet to see any instance of reducing seats increasing activity.

The nominal population is higher than ever, yes, but how many citizens are actively involved?

It's certainly a low proportion; the number of people meaningfully engaged hasn't changed measurably.