PT Polls: Should there be regions?

[Continential]

Should there be regions?

[S019]

In ideal system, probably not. Unitary government is a valid means of doing government and many times separation of powers can make government inefficient as it limits what Congress can and cannot do. This can make passing policy difficult, and also outsourcing enforcement of policy to the states and regions as must often be done can also be quite ineffective. On the other hand, there would be issues with administering a large unitary state, albeit these issues are less serious now in the age of mass communication and transportation, however administering far flung regions can still be tricky. On the other hand, I highly doubt the GM would simulate this, which takes away the main disadvantage of a unitary system. Anyways as a longtime advocate of big government, I believe a unitary system is worth a try.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The day Nyman votes to abolish the regions is the day we vote to abolish them.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

There's a good equilibrium between when the game has too many offices and when the game has too few. Abolishing the regions would upset that balance.

I especially don't want to abolish existing executive positions since there are really only four in the game as it stands.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't favor abolishing regions. I firmly believe in regionalism.
If we did abolish the regions, then I'd favor some kind of executive council replacing a single-person presidency.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

There should be regions. In the number of one. Frémont.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In ideal system, probably not. Unitary government is a valid means of doing government and many times separation of powers can make government inefficient as it limits what Congress can and cannot do. This can make passing policy difficult, and also outsourcing enforcement of policy to the states and regions as must often be done can also be quite ineffective. On the other hand, there would be issues with administering a large unitary state, albeit these issues are less serious now in the age of mass communication and transportation, however administering far flung regions can still be tricky. On the other hand, I highly doubt the GM would simulate this, which takes away the main disadvantage of a unitary system. Anyways as a longtime advocate of big government, I believe a unitary system is worth a try.

The dark side of centralism is strong with this one.

We as a matter of design do not grant the Federal Gov't absolute power with which it then disperses out of some sense of benevolence. We grant the Federal Government a set of limit powers and those not placed in such care, are not its to begin with and it is so for a reason.

Concentrations of power yield tyranny.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The day Nyman votes to abolish the regions is the day we vote to abolish them.

As right as LT is when it comes to the downsides of this for this right (in some ways), the pro-region consensus was a desired objective back in 2015. Though whether or not its attainment was a mere accidental result or a calculated end, I would probably have to lean towards the former if for no other reason than if someone had asked me to lay down the steps out of that situation to such, I could not have given them in concrete form at the time.

In 2009, the only people who would have said anything close to this would have been the likes of PiT, SPC, or even myself. I do recall at one point parroting Lenin in pique of pro-regional extremism right after joining (all power to the regions!). Naturally, such extremism as that would be soundly rejected by me within mere months of that, but comments like those of Truman here, were standard RPP base whipping material.

[Former President tack50]

In ideal system, probably not. Unitary government is a valid means of doing government and many times separation of powers can make government inefficient as it limits what Congress can and cannot do. This can make passing policy difficult, and also outsourcing enforcement of policy to the states and regions as must often be done can also be quite ineffective. On the other hand, there would be issues with administering a large unitary state, albeit these issues are less serious now in the age of mass communication and transportation, however administering far flung regions can still be tricky. On the other hand, I highly doubt the GM would simulate this, which takes away the main disadvantage of a unitary system. Anyways as a longtime advocate of big government, I believe a unitary system is worth a try.

The dark side of centralism is strong with this one.

We as a matter of design do not grant the Federal Gov't absolute power with which it then disperses out of some sense of benevolence. We grant the Federal Government a set of limit powers and those not placed in such care, are not its to begin with and it is so for a reason.

Concentrations of power yield tyranny.

It is worth noting that you could very easily design a government that indeed gives the Federal government absolute power which it then disperses out of some sense of benevolence

(Source: That is exactly how Spain's irl division of power works; down to having a sort of "Reversed 10th Amendment"!)

And of course there are even more centralized systems of government where the feds just hog up all the power and don't give a single ounce like France or really most European nations.

I would radically oppose reforms in such a direction since they would be un-American (harder to relate for the average Atlasian) and also I am a federalist irl so it just follows easily into the game. But it could be theoretically done.

[S019]

In ideal system, probably not. Unitary government is a valid means of doing government and many times separation of powers can make government inefficient as it limits what Congress can and cannot do. This can make passing policy difficult, and also outsourcing enforcement of policy to the states and regions as must often be done can also be quite ineffective. On the other hand, there would be issues with administering a large unitary state, albeit these issues are less serious now in the age of mass communication and transportation, however administering far flung regions can still be tricky. On the other hand, I highly doubt the GM would simulate this, which takes away the main disadvantage of a unitary system. Anyways as a longtime advocate of big government, I believe a unitary system is worth a try.

The dark side of centralism is strong with this one.

We as a matter of design do not grant the Federal Gov't absolute power with which it then disperses out of some sense of benevolence. We grant the Federal Government a set of limit powers and those not placed in such care, are not its to begin with and it is so for a reason.

Concentrations of power yield tyranny.

It is worth noting that you could very easily design a government that indeed gives the Federal government absolute power which it then disperses out of some sense of benevolence

(Source: That is exactly how Spain's irl division of power works; down to having a sort of "Reversed 10th Amendment"!)

And of course there are even more centralized systems of government where the feds just hog up all the power and don't give a single ounce like France or really most European nations.

I would radically oppose reforms in such a direction since they would be un-American (harder to relate for the average Atlasian) and also I am a federalist irl so it just follows easily into the game. But it could be theoretically done.

The main issue for me is that as an American, it's easy to see how flawed our democratic system is in general, and people who take only a little bit of effort to learn about democratic systems across the world can see why that is so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In ideal system, probably not. Unitary government is a valid means of doing government and many times separation of powers can make government inefficient as it limits what Congress can and cannot do. This can make passing policy difficult, and also outsourcing enforcement of policy to the states and regions as must often be done can also be quite ineffective. On the other hand, there would be issues with administering a large unitary state, albeit these issues are less serious now in the age of mass communication and transportation, however administering far flung regions can still be tricky. On the other hand, I highly doubt the GM would simulate this, which takes away the main disadvantage of a unitary system. Anyways as a longtime advocate of big government, I believe a unitary system is worth a try.

The dark side of centralism is strong with this one.

We as a matter of design do not grant the Federal Gov't absolute power with which it then disperses out of some sense of benevolence. We grant the Federal Government a set of limit powers and those not placed in such care, are not its to begin with and it is so for a reason.

Concentrations of power yield tyranny.

It is worth noting that you could very easily design a government that indeed gives the Federal government absolute power which it then disperses out of some sense of benevolence

(Source: That is exactly how Spain's irl division of power works; down to having a sort of "Reversed 10th Amendment"!)

And of course there are even more centralized systems of government where the feds just hog up all the power and don't give a single ounce like France or really most European nations.

I would radically oppose reforms in such a direction since they would be un-American (harder to relate for the average Atlasian) and also I am a federalist irl so it just follows easily into the game. But it could be theoretically done.

It is not by accident that regional-centralist lines used to the divide somewhat along American versus foreign lines. This was not always absolute those as you had pro-regional lefties like Hans-im-Gluck, who was from Germany, while a number of Americans like Snowguy and Marokai (pre-2011) were centralist or anti-region.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

In an ideal world, there would be no need for regions as we could just delegate everyone to the 50 IRL states, but until we have a large enough player base to support 50 governors, hundreds of congressmen, and maybe even a few thousand state legislators, we're stuck with a federal government and three big pseudostates regions.

A unitary government would be interesting to try out, especially if we grow the number of seats that people could hold, although it disrupts the sense of localism as well as the idea of "climbing the ranks" of more important positions.

[Leinad]

I literally planned on just typing "yes" and I made a g-dang essay...

From a philosophical standpoint: the more centralized government is, the less it is in touch with the people who allegedly control it, and the less the people practically controlled by said government feel they have a voice. Those who make decisions are, naturally, more closely resembling a group solely of "elites," with all the ever-corrupting money and ego that enters that equation. While the idea that pure regionalism can lead to minorities in particularly tyrannical regions receiving the short end of the stick, the same can be said for minorities nation-wide when only the elites at the capital get a vote--a balance is necessary (Yankee, consider this my late birthday present for you ). I've noticed that some people here tend to view everyone wanting to secede from a country as the Confederates of the US Civil War--a specific example that doesn't reflect the fact that many "rebel groups" are themselves, in fact, the oppressed people vying for freedom from a union that screws them over.

I think more devolved power is, in general, a good thing. The more decisions can be made within a community, the more regular people have a say. (Community-focus is also a must for police!) While some sort of lib-soc paradise where people live in gay space communes and are all members of some council where everyone gets to vote on how to best love and respect each other is, clearly, nothing more than a blurry vision to 2021 eyes, it's the one we want human eyes to gaze upon at some point before the heat death of the universe, right? (This is where I lose the conservatives who were cheering on my first paragraph )

From a gameplay standpoint: Obviously. Far less chance the entire game gets uncompetitive or bland--there's always 4 different zones for elections to take place instead of just the federal one--and more room to experiment with different systems of government and laws. Not to mention a change of pace for veterans who don't feel like going to Nyman, and a place for new people to learn the ropes (not to mention be tested for activity without risking sending a dud to the House). I've long said that, if we were going to nuke the federal or regional governments--for the sake of the gameplay--we should scrap the federal and just have 3 different countries. That would be more fun that just running one government.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I literally planned on just typing "yes" and I made a g-dang essay...

And this is a problem?

[Leinad]

I literally planned on just typing "yes" and I made a g-dang essay...

And this is a problem?

Nah I wasn't going to go to bed much earlier than I ended up doing so anyway

[Continential]

Bumping due to recent threads.

[marcuszodiak]

Regions are good, a centralized government doesn't represent the people very efficiently