New Unicameral-Subregional Plan Proposal

[Oakvale]

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.

I've been thinking that someone with a lot of time on their hands might want to pull together some data on the number of 'active users' (at least one post per month on the FE boards?) vs. the surge in population because I guarantee there's basically no relationship any more. Evidently it is not the case the nominal number of active participants is a constant percentage of the voter rolls. The nominal number of "active users" has, as far as I can tell, at best remained stagnant and quite possibly even declined over time.

As I've said previously, this drastically accelerates the structural flaws in Atlasia, because elections will grow increasingly disconnected from the unrepresentative tiny number of people who actually participate in the game on a regular basis.

Certainly there's a balance that needs to be struck: reducing the number of offices, in principle, will increase competition and make for more interesting and engaging elections, but, obviously, taking this too far would result in too many people holding no office - and having no prospect of doing so - leading to a dwindling of interest and activity.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

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.

I've been thinking that someone with a lot of time on their hands might want to pull together some data on the number of 'active users' (at least one post per month on the FE boards?) vs. the surge in population because I guarantee there's basically no relationship any more. Evidently it is not the case the nominal number of active participants is a constant percentage of the voter rolls. The nominal number of "active users" has, as far as I can tell, at best remained stagnant and quite possibly even declined over time.

As I've said previously, this drastically accelerates the structural flaws in Atlasia, because elections will grow increasingly disconnected from the unrepresentative tiny number of people who actually participate in the game on a regular basis.

Certainly there's a balance that needs to be struck: reducing the number of offices, in principle, will increase competition and make for more interesting and engaging elections, but, obviously, taking this too far would result in too many people holding no office - and having no prospect of doing so - leading to a dwindling of interest and activity.

I find the problem of how offices are currently arranged to be more about the lack of distinct things that someone can run for rather than just simply how many total offices there are. The current status quo gives 2 senators who are elected by each of the 3 regions. That seems redundant since we have scientific management of the voting population of the regions. It would be much harder for a machine to keep control of 6 subregions with the heavy restrictions on strategic registration. These safeguards will actually give regions more room to build their own cultures and let local politics actually matter within them rather than just be seen as something to extract senate seats from by any means possible which results in less competition a majority of the time since it will take so much effort to recruit,  get voters valid, and move voters from other regions while fearing what the other side will do if you want to win a senate race under the current scheme. Perhaps just having subregional senators and at-large senators could work. There are real and reasonable concerns to keep it balanced between regionally elected and popularly elected members and to not cut the at-large size since it would just result in upwards of 35-40 votes being needed to get elected to a seat which would only serve to shut out independents, third parties, and those whose ideologies mean they have a smaller base to draw from like social conservatives and libertarians.

This plan does serve to give more avenues for people to get engaged and have a chance of winning. A lot of voters don't get involved because they either see no chance of winning in their region or find congress to be too boring.

[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.

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.

Has it decreased? I doubt it.

[Oakvale]

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.

Has it decreased? I doubt it.

It's certainly decreased by quite a lot as a percentage of the overall voter base - leading to, as I've pointed out - a widening of the gap between a quasi-exogenous electorate and the game proper.

[reagente]

I think we should have the number of Senators at 15, rather than add three. I worry expanding the size of the unicameral chamber could harm activity in regional governments by drawing talent away.

Accordingly, I would propose we either ditch the three regionally elected Senate seats (and keep the sub regions), or only elect six Senate seats nationwide instead of nine.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I think we should have the number of Senators at 15, rather than add three. I worry expanding the size of the unicameral chamber could harm activity in regional governments by drawing talent away.

Accordingly, I would propose we either ditch the three regionally elected Senate seats (and keep the sub regions), or only elect six Senate seats nationwide instead of nine.

Drawing away talent from regional governments is very much a concern with enlarging the federal congress. I guess regional senators are the most redundant aspect of this plan as at-large and subregional senators seem to be the most valuable part of this plan in my opinion. However the whole package of this plan is fine with me as well and I do prefer it as is.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I support this plan, as i've said i'm a big proponent of game reform, and this is a move in the right direction.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

I support it but I think the term timing should be uniform, not going back and forth from two to four months, it's gonna get confusing for new users under that type of schedule.

[Continential]

If there were 6 seats up in February, the quota threshold would be 41.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Endorsed! So relieved to see constitutional reform on the front of people's minds. The bicameral system has lasted a good, long 5 years and it's time for something different. See you in 2026 for the next Congressional restructuring!

[Dr. MB]

1 of the main conditions of this plan was an equal balance between regional seats and at large seats. It won't happen any other way.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

1 of the main conditions of this plan was an equal balance between regional seats and at large seats. It won't happen any other way.

makes sense considering Yankee signed onto this.

[Sestak]

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.

Late in responding to this, but this was my thought as well - with the subregional elections in the regional booth, arguably the most common 'mishap' would simply be voters who have become used to filling out every race on the ballot continuing to do so - which ultimately isn't really that big a deal; mostly just an inconvenience for voting booth administrators. Hopefully also won't be a behavior we see for too long, as voters should catch on after a couple of cycles at most.

[Talleyrand]

We could also have separate booths per region if people really think this would cause that much confusion?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If there were 6 seats up in February, the quota threshold would be 41.

If the old Five Seats were still a thing for At-large it would take as many votes to win one seat as it used to take to win the Presidency (50 to 60).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1 of the main conditions of this plan was an equal balance between regional seats and at large seats. It won't happen any other way.

makes sense considering Yankee signed onto this.

If we are going to give up bicameralism, then there needs to be some semblance of the balance of the old pre-reset Senate restored.

[Sirius_]

If there were 6 seats up in February, the quota threshold would be 41.

If the old Five Seats were still a thing for At-large it would take as many votes to win one seat as it used to take to win the Presidency (50 to 60).

And that is why we don't reduce the number of congressional seats when the population has gone up.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly at the end of the day, this just adds 3 more offices. If we end up with a situation where we are having problems filling all the offices we can always just downscale the regions (most likely capping regional legislatures at 5 members)

[thumb21]

The subregions could be interesting, although different classes of legislators elected in different ways is not something I'm a fan of. Not sure how I'll vote in a referendum yet.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Don't have a lot to say except that I support this. I can see the argument for keeping at-large and regional/subregional term lengths the same, but it is not that big an issue for me and the benefits of a single large body far outweigh any negatives that might be associated with this plan.

Also going to take this opportunity to say I told you so.

[Sestak]

Whilst I am not opposed to the conceptual framework of unicameralism or even subregionalism, I fully reject the creation of parallel classes of members with different term lengths within the same body.
I could see myself supporting this if the tenure of the at-large Senators were raised in length to four months.

I also find the concept of Senators having different term lengths depending on constituency strange.

I support it but I think the term timing should be uniform, not going back and forth from two to four months, it's gonna get confusing for new users under that type of schedule.

So this is one of the detail points (other than the general concern about the legislature size) that seems to have drawn the most comments/critiques. This is a point that I think has reasonable arguments in either direction, and the four of us don't really have a super strong preference on it.

So I have opened a thread solely to debate and discuss this point - I'd like to get most of the viewpoints out on the table so we can see where the player base stands on this.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

so is this still on

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

FWIW (I think I've expressed my thoughts in Labcord but not here), I'm all on board with this plan: two-month terms for at-large senators and four-month terms for regional senators, as well as the proposed map.

The weakened Vice Presidency will be sad to see, but I suppose with the right president, the VP can be delegated with non-menial book-keeping responsibilities or just waiting for tie breaks or the President's resignation or removal.

[Sestak]

so is this still on

ahem

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

so is this still on

ahem

I'm taking credit for you posting it at this exact time