FT 20.03 Denver Mayoral NPC Elections Resolution (Voting)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A RESOLUTION
For changing the City of San Francisco, CA to Denver, CO for NPC elections

Be it resolved by the Parliament of Frémont assembled

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Denver Mayoral NPC Elections Resolution.

Section 2. Replacement of San Francisco as the Round 4 NPC City

1. Upon passage of this resolution, the Parliament of Frémont officially submits to the Game Moderator a request for the city of Denver, Colorado to replace the city of San Francisco, California as the city of choice for Frémont's Round 4 mayoral election.

Sponsor: Scott

The gentleman from Wyoming has the floor.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So, currently we have two mayoral elections, as does Lincoln and the South. But both our cities are in the same state. Simply put, one state should not have three campaigns in one cycle.

I am proposing Denver, right here in our Commonwealth's capital, as an alternative city to San Francisco. GM Peanut has said that he will honor the wishes of the region.

I understand there has been disagreement over which new city should be used. Phoenix has been proposed as an alternative, as has Minneapolis. But replacing San Francisco with a smaller city will make the game more interesting for the parties to tailor their campaigns.

I hope that, even if Denver is not the preferred city of this body, we can all agree that no state should have two NPC mayoral campaigns.

Thank you.

[Left Wing]

Chiming in here to suggest something. Perhaps we could hold a two question referendum on first, whether San Francisco should be replaced and second on what city to replace it with. I think similar to the flag referendum, this could be a fun low stakes way for people to engage with the game while also guaranteeing the choice of city is the choice of a majority of Frèmonters.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Chiming in here to suggest something. Perhaps we could hold a two question referendum on first, whether San Francisco should be replaced and second on what city to replace it with. I think similar to the flag referendum, this could be a fun low stakes way for people to engage with the game while also guaranteeing the choice of city is the choice of a majority of Frèmonters.

I'm definitely open to this. But if that's the direction we're going, this has to be passed ASAP so that Truman can add this to the ballot next weekend.

Input from MPs would be highly appreciated.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I have no stakes in NPC elections but I agree that California should not have both of Frémont's mayorals in the game. My position is in between FalterinArc's and Scott's it seems, for I think San Francisco should be substituted in any case but I support holding a referendum to decide the replacement.

[Kuumo]

I personally support changing the second Frémont NPC city to Denver, but I think the people of Frémont should get a voice through a referendum.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

FWIW: Here are the results of my FT city survey. If the election weren't next week, I'd even say let the people nominate any city they want, but we don't have time for that.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I have no strong feelings about this and don't find any of the arguments for various cities particularly compelling, so I will probably abstain from the vote. That said, I may have to balance my ambivalence toward the outcome of this discussion with my historic opposition to referendums if such becomes part of the final bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So given's Truman's opposition to referendums, how about we re-compromise and just have Parliament select the city via IRV?

EDIT: And since Truman doesn't care much either way and presumably wants this off his table ASAP, I'll even tally the results.

[YE]

I know I’ve been inactive but I don’t see how it’s a big deal that San Francisco has both NPC races and San Francisco has a unique political culture irl unlike Denver so I see the appeal.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Are we still considering this? I don't follow NPC elections much, so I am not sure when San Francisco or its replacement would vote next.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Are we still considering this? I don't follow NPC elections much, so I am not sure when San Francisco or its replacement would vote next.

Not for the next several months, because San Francisco's last election was last month.

Still, at this point I would urge Parliament to either pass the resolution as-is or select a city via IRV, since a referendum is out of the question.

[Kuumo]

I move that the Parliament use IRV to determine the NPC election city.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I move that the Parliament use IRV voting to determine the NPC election city.

I second the motion, although I am not sure among which pool of cities we should choose. Are we literally just free to make up the ranking that most pleases us?

On an unrelated note, "IRV voting" is like "ATM machine" - unnecessary redundancy bad.

[Kuumo]

I move that the Parliament use IRV voting to determine the NPC election city.

I second the motion, although I am not sure among which pool of cities we should choose. Are we literally just free to make up the ranking that most pleases us?

On an unrelated note, "IRV voting" is like "ATM machine" - unnecessary redundancy bad.

I was planning to rank San Francisco and the five alternative cities that received votes in Scott's survey.

[YE]

Anyone here want to introduce a relevant amendment then?

[Kuumo]

AN AMENDMENT

1. The second NPC mayoral election city shall be decided by the Parliament of Frémont via instant-runoff vote. The list of available cities shall be Albuquerque, Denver, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Phoenix.
2. After the conclusion of the vote, the city with the greatest amount of support will be submitted to the Game Moderator for approval.

[YE]

24 hours to object to said amendment.

Next time, bold/strike through your additions/subtractions.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Bump.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I move for a vote on the bill itself (what we would normally call a final vote, except it technically is not because we then need to actually hold the instant-runoff selection for the substitute city).

[Kuumo]

I second Battista Minola's motion.

[YE]

First of all amendment has been adopted.

Given no objections to a final vote, one is opened.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Abstain.

[YE]

Nay.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Nay