S.21-2.13: End Rotten Boroughs Act (Awaiting Signature)

[reagente]

End Rotten Boroughs Act

Section I. Title and Definitions
i. This bill may be known as the “End Rotten Boroughs Act”
ii. Voter Eligible Population” (VEP) is defined as the citizen population and permanent resident population, as well as all those with a currently valid immigrant visa as defined by the Atlasian Department of State on this website (https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050201.html), that is not barred from voting on account of incarceration or mental incompetence.

Section II. Substance
i. All legislative districts in the Southern Region shall be drawn to have equal Voter Eligible Populations – allowing for up to a ten percent total deviation.
ii. The Southern Attorney General’s Office shall compile VEP data utilizing federal census data and Southern administrative records. This VEP data shall be compiled at least yearly and produced at the census block level.
iii.  Upon the production of the first set of VEP data, all governments within the Southern regional shall immediately redraw legislative boundaries to comply with this act. Thereafter, legislative boundaries must be redrawn at least once every decade.

One man, one vote should mean everyone's vote is weighted the same. By counting felons and non-citizens for apportionment and drawing districts, but not allowing those individuals to vote, the current apportionment method creates rotten boroughs where some citizens votes matter more than others. Sub-regional governments should be required to adhere to the one-man one-vote maxim.

Minimum 48 hours debate

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Our elected officials represent everyone, not just all voters. There is no good basis to pass this law.

[reagente]

Our elected officials represent everyone, not just all voters. There is no good basis to pass this law.

I don't understand how this would stop elected officials from representing everyone in their district. All this would require is that all districts should have an equal number of eligible voters.

Why should a citizen get extra weight for his vote just because they live near someone not eligible to vote? Why should another citizen have his vote count for less just because they don't live near someone not eligible to vote?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Our elected officials represent everyone, not just all voters. There is no good basis to pass this law.

I don't understand how this would stop elected officials from representing everyone in their district. All this would require is that all districts should have an equal number of eligible voters.

Why should a citizen get extra weight for his vote just because they live near someone not eligible to vote? Why should another citizen have his vote count for less just because they don't live near someone not eligible to vote?

Whatever evils stem from having districts with unequal number of voters, is more than outweighed by having them have wildly variable number of people. The worth of a citizen in context of redistricting is not decided by whether or not they are voters.

[reagente]

Our elected officials represent everyone, not just all voters. There is no good basis to pass this law.

I don't understand how this would stop elected officials from representing everyone in their district. All this would require is that all districts should have an equal number of eligible voters.

Why should a citizen get extra weight for his vote just because they live near someone not eligible to vote? Why should another citizen have his vote count for less just because they don't live near someone not eligible to vote?

Whatever evils stem from having districts with unequal number of voters, is more than outweighed by having them have wildly variable number of people. The worth of a citizen in context of redistricting is not decided by whether or not they are voters.

Just as districts can have wildly different numbers of people, they currently can have wildly different numbers of voters. I think that creates greater distortions than the reverse, but we might have to agree to disagree.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Our elected officials represent everyone, not just all voters. There is no good basis to pass this law.

I don't understand how this would stop elected officials from representing everyone in their district. All this would require is that all districts should have an equal number of eligible voters.

Why should a citizen get extra weight for his vote just because they live near someone not eligible to vote? Why should another citizen have his vote count for less just because they don't live near someone not eligible to vote?

Whatever evils stem from having districts with unequal number of voters, is more than outweighed by having them have wildly variable number of people. The worth of a citizen in context of redistricting is not decided by whether or not they are voters.

Just as districts can have wildly different numbers of people, they currently can have wildly different numbers of voters. I think that creates greater distortions than the reverse, but we might have to agree to disagree.

Why should we consider eligable voter status some kind of sacred cow in context of redistricting? Shouldn't it matter more that all people be taken into account here? Including people who aren't of voting age yet, but still might well be more politically engaged than many who are in fact eligible to vote?
Our politicians don't represent just merely voters. They represent the people, and cater to those who are likelier to vote because they rely on garnering votes in order to stay in their jobs.
Redistricting conventions ought to reflect that.

[Biden his time]

I a somewhat uncomfortable with this bill as it seems that it's main affect will be lessening the (already low) influence of immigrant communities out of balance. Areas with proportionally more immigrants (and children) not having enough representatives seems like it'll cause the legislature to deprioritize their issues to an unreasonable amount considering how much fewer representatives these areas will have. My own metro area of Miami will immensely decline in importance and I think it's less likely that state legislatures will listen to our concerns if we have them, because we'll have less people to advocate for them, even if the amount of people who live there is higher IRL. Also places with smaller amounts of minors will be prioritized (so this'd mean Sumter County, FL will have an unreasonable amount of influence over rural Alabama, which has a higher amount of children).

Also, to me these places aren't really rotten boroughs because the people living inside them all have the potential to join as voters later on, and there is an equal amount of people being represented by every representative at present.

On the other hand, some reasons that I could see for being in favor of this is that "One person = One vote" concept and that perhaps it'd incentivize quicker naturalization (but I don't think it does anything but foster resentment really, most immigrants do attempt to naturalize already).

Are there any real life examples of such a bill anywhere in the world? And what were the consequences there?


I would be open to a provision switching the language from "Voter Eligible population" to "Permanent residents (Inc. Children), though to lessen the impact of tourism for example. People who do not permanently live in an area and are staying as tourists IMHO should not really be reflected in congressional apportionment at least if they have homes of their own in other areas.

[reagente]

I a somewhat uncomfortable with this bill as it seems that it's main affect will be lessening the (already low) influence of immigrant communities out of balance. Areas with proportionally more immigrants (and children) not having enough representatives seems like it'll cause the legislature to deprioritize their issues to an unreasonable amount considering how much fewer representatives these areas will have. My own metro area of Miami will immensely decline in importance and I think it's less likely that state legislatures will listen to our concerns if we have them, because we'll have less people to advocate for them, even if the amount of people who live there is higher IRL. Also places with smaller amounts of minors will be prioritized (so this'd mean Sumter County, FL will have an unreasonable amount of influence over rural Alabama, which has a higher amount of children).

Also, to me these places aren't really rotten boroughs because the people living inside them all have the potential to join as voters later on, and there is an equal amount of people being represented by every representative at present.

On the other hand, some reasons that I could see for being in favor of this is that "One person = One vote" concept and that perhaps it'd incentivize quicker naturalization (but I don't think it does anything but foster resentment really, most immigrants do attempt to naturalize already).

Are there any real life examples of such a bill anywhere in the world? And what were the consequences there?


I would be open to a provision switching the language from "Voter Eligible population" to "Permanent residents (Inc. Children), though to lessen the impact of tourism for example. People who do not permanently live in an area and are staying as tourists IMHO should not really be reflected in congressional apportionment at least if they have homes of their own in other areas.

Australia and the United Kingdom both apportion by electorate, and it works fine for there. In terms of the impact on immigrant communities, the United Kingdom has an immigrant population share comparable to mainland Atlasia, and Australia's is almost twice as large as a share of the population.

I understand the argument about immigrant influence, but I'm just not convinced it actually works out this way all or even most of the time. Particularly in racially polarized areas, there's a history where the electorate (which is demographically distinct from the total population) votes contrary to the desires of the whole population. For example, Orange County California saw its representation relative to its share of the electorate boosted because of immigration, but until somewhat recently the actual electorate there elected very anti-immigrant representatives. Or look at Southern states where there are districts that in theory are majority black by population but have majority white electorates - does the non-enfranchised black population really have influence there?

On the topic of incentives, I'd imagine the bigger impact than speeding up naturalization is dis-incentivizing incarceration based suffrage restrictions. Under the current population based model, states and localities can disenfranchise significant portions of their population through incarceration and keep the same amount of representation. Also the current system creates a very perverse incentive where cities that ignore immigration law are given a boost in representation for hosting more illegal immigrants.

If it would actually help secure passage, I would be willing to amend the bill to exclude only felons and illegal immigrants from apportionment. While I included kids to keep the definition of non-elector simple and not be accused of biasing areas with more children, the largest disparities are driven from those latter two groups (and explain most of why in 2018, there were districts where losing candidates got three times as many votes as winning candidates in others)

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I support this legislation. Reagente's arguments are convincing.

[Biden his time]

Australia and the United Kingdom both apportion by electorate, and it works fine for there. In terms of the impact on immigrant communities, the United Kingdom has an immigrant population share comparable to mainland Atlasia, and Australia's is almost twice as large as a share of the population.

I understand the argument about immigrant influence, but I'm just not convinced it actually works out this way all or even most of the time. Particularly in racially polarized areas, there's a history where the electorate (which is demographically distinct from the total population) votes contrary to the desires of the whole population. For example, Orange County California saw its representation relative to its share of the electorate boosted because of immigration, but until somewhat recently the actual electorate there elected very anti-immigrant representatives. Or look at Southern states where there are districts that in theory are majority black by population but have majority white electorates - does the non-enfranchised black population really have influence there?

On the topic of incentives, I'd imagine the bigger impact than speeding up naturalization is dis-incentivizing incarceration based suffrage restrictions. Under the current population based model, states and localities can disenfranchise significant portions of their population through incarceration and keep the same amount of representation. Also the current system creates a very perverse incentive where cities that ignore immigration law are given a boost in representation for hosting more illegal immigrants.

Many good points. Also, TIL that the UK and Australia use this system.

If it would actually help secure passage, I would be willing to amend the bill to exclude only felons and illegal immigrants from apportionment. While I included kids to keep the definition of non-elector simple and not be accused of biasing areas with more children, the largest disparities are driven from those latter two groups (and explain most of why in 2018, there were districts where losing candidates got three times as many votes as winning candidates in others)

I am supportive of such an amendment. I would be interested to hear, though, under both scenarios, what would the imbalance between the district with the highest number of people and the lowest number of people would look like.

How often does reapportionment occur? Every election?

[reagente]

Australia and the United Kingdom both apportion by electorate, and it works fine for there. In terms of the impact on immigrant communities, the United Kingdom has an immigrant population share comparable to mainland Atlasia, and Australia's is almost twice as large as a share of the population.

I understand the argument about immigrant influence, but I'm just not convinced it actually works out this way all or even most of the time. Particularly in racially polarized areas, there's a history where the electorate (which is demographically distinct from the total population) votes contrary to the desires of the whole population. For example, Orange County California saw its representation relative to its share of the electorate boosted because of immigration, but until somewhat recently the actual electorate there elected very anti-immigrant representatives. Or look at Southern states where there are districts that in theory are majority black by population but have majority white electorates - does the non-enfranchised black population really have influence there?

On the topic of incentives, I'd imagine the bigger impact than speeding up naturalization is dis-incentivizing incarceration based suffrage restrictions. Under the current population based model, states and localities can disenfranchise significant portions of their population through incarceration and keep the same amount of representation. Also the current system creates a very perverse incentive where cities that ignore immigration law are given a boost in representation for hosting more illegal immigrants.

Many good points. Also, TIL that the UK and Australia use this system.

If it would actually help secure passage, I would be willing to amend the bill to exclude only felons and illegal immigrants from apportionment. While I included kids to keep the definition of non-elector simple and not be accused of biasing areas with more children, the largest disparities are driven from those latter two groups (and explain most of why in 2018, there were districts where losing candidates got three times as many votes as winning candidates in others)

I am supportive of such an amendment. I would be interested to hear, though, under both scenarios, what would the imbalance between the district with the highest number of people and the lowest number of people would look like.

How often does reapportionment occur? Every election?

Reapportionment would still be at least once a decade after the initial reapportionment.

Proposing this amendment

End Rotten Boroughs Act

Section I. Title and Definitions
i. This bill may be known as the “End Rotten Boroughs Act”
ii. “Voter Eligible Population” (VEP) is defined as the citizen population and permanent resident population, over the age of eighteen that is not barred from voting on account of incarceration or mental incompetence.

Section II. Substance
i. All legislative districts in the Southern Region shall be drawn to have equal Voter Eligible Populations – allowing for up to a ten percent total deviation.
ii. The Southern Attorney General’s Office shall compile VEP data utilizing federal census data and Southern administrative records. This VEP data shall be compiled at least yearly and produced at the census block level.
iii.  Upon the production of the first set of VEP data, all governments within the Southern regional shall immediately redraw legislative boundaries to comply with this act. Thereafter, legislative boundaries must be redrawn at least once every decade.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No objection.

[reagente]

Amendment adopted.

Are there any further changes delegates would like to make to the bill, or should we move this to a final vote?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No objection to a final vote at this stage. This bill is in milder form than when first envisioned.

[lfromnj]

Does Permanent resident include or exclude VISA holders?

[Biden his time]

Does Permanent resident include or exclude VISA holders?

I don't know what the bill implies, but in my opinion, it 100% certainly should include immigrant visas. Non-immigrant visas are more debatable (leaning no on this one).

There's an extremely long waiting time between migrating to the United States and getting your green card. For my parents it took over a decade for this to happen.

[reagente]

Do we know what percent of people who have Immigrant visas end up getting citizenship?

[reagente]

Motioning for a final vote

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

objection to the final vote for now, I think this bill needs more work.

End Rotten Boroughs Act

Section I. Title and Definitions
i. This bill may be known as the “End Rotten Boroughs Act”
ii. “Voter Eligible Population” (VEP) is defined as the citizen population and permanent resident population, as well as all those with a currently valid visa, that is not barred from voting on account of incarceration or mental incompetence.

Section II. Substance
i. All legislative districts in the Southern Region shall be drawn to have equal Voter Eligible Populations – allowing for up to a ten percent total deviation.
ii. The Southern Attorney General’s Office shall compile VEP data utilizing federal census data and Southern administrative records. This VEP data shall be compiled at least yearly and produced at the census block level.
iii.  Upon the production of the first set of VEP data, all governments within the Southern regional shall immediately redraw legislative boundaries to comply with this act. Thereafter, legislative boundaries must be redrawn at least once every decade.

proposed amendment to include visa holders, with wording specifically drawn to exclude non-permanent residents who overstayed their visas.

[reagente]

objection to the final vote for now, I think this bill needs more work.

End Rotten Boroughs Act

Section I. Title and Definitions
i. This bill may be known as the “End Rotten Boroughs Act”
ii. “Voter Eligible Population” (VEP) is defined as the citizen population and permanent resident population, as well as all those with a currently valid visa, that is not barred from voting on account of incarceration or mental incompetence.

Section II. Substance
i. All legislative districts in the Southern Region shall be drawn to have equal Voter Eligible Populations – allowing for up to a ten percent total deviation.
ii. The Southern Attorney General’s Office shall compile VEP data utilizing federal census data and Southern administrative records. This VEP data shall be compiled at least yearly and produced at the census block level.
iii.  Upon the production of the first set of VEP data, all governments within the Southern regional shall immediately redraw legislative boundaries to comply with this act. Thereafter, legislative boundaries must be redrawn at least once every decade.

proposed amendment to include visa holders, with wording specifically drawn to exclude non-permanent residents who overstayed their visas.

I object to this amendment. I think Permanent Residents should be the cutoff. Having a Greencard is a much stronger indication of a desire to live in Atlasia and participate in our political system than a non-permanent work visa.

----

48 hours to vote on this Amendment.

Nay.

[Biden his time]

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my prolonged absence from the chamber.

Do we know what percent of people who have Immigrant visas end up getting citizenship?

No, unfortunately. I looked hard for stats but couldn't find any on the internet.


I think the best cutoff for this is the U.S. State Department's categorization of "Immigrant Visas" and "Non-Immigrant Visas". You can take a detailed look at the lists here.

I object to TimTurner's amendment, though, because it will include too many people who are staying temporarily in Atlasia, generally not paying taxes except sales tax, who have full intent to return to their home country, such as athlete visas, temporary agricultural workers, tourists etc. Areas which have many of these people in them at any given time will swell even if the people there have proper residences in other countries. My vote is Nay (on the proposed amendment).

On the other hand, I do believe that people who get most of the visas listed on the U.S. State Department's list of Immigrant Visas have shown indication that they'd like to live in Atlasia permanently, these people likely have homes, pay their bills, and are quite interested in the well-being of this country going forward. This category includes employment-based immigrants, returning residents, spouses of U.S. citizens, "Certain" family members of lawful permanent residents (the Atlasian Department of State will take care of this, of course), and diversity visas. If you have gripes with specific visas inside (maybe the religious workers or so) then we can discuss those individually.


Here's my proposed amendment:

End Rotten Boroughs Act

Section I. Title and Definitions
i. This bill may be known as the “End Rotten Boroughs Act”
ii. “Voter Eligible Population” (VEP) is defined as the citizen population and permanent resident population, as well as all those with a currently valid immigrant visa as defined by the Atlasian Department of State on this website (https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050201.html), that is not barred from voting on account of incarceration or mental incompetence.

Section II. Substance
i. All legislative districts in the Southern Region shall be drawn to have equal Voter Eligible Populations – allowing for up to a ten percent total deviation.
ii. The Southern Attorney General’s Office shall compile VEP data utilizing federal census data and Southern administrative records. This VEP data shall be compiled at least yearly and produced at the census block level.
iii.  Upon the production of the first set of VEP data, all governments within the Southern regional shall immediately redraw legislative boundaries to comply with this act. Thereafter, legislative boundaries must be redrawn at least once every decade.

Another issue is the mental incompetence clause, I'm not quite sure what that would entail to be frank, but that could be discussed in another amendment.


Maybe if the process for receiving permanent residency status (i.e. a green card) was made easier then we could remove this provision, but until then, I think it's best that we include it.

Opinions?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I like your amendment better than mine.

[reagente]

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my prolonged absence from the chamber.

Do we know what percent of people who have Immigrant visas end up getting citizenship?

No, unfortunately. I looked hard for stats but couldn't find any on the internet.


I think the best cutoff for this is the U.S. State Department's categorization of "Immigrant Visas" and "Non-Immigrant Visas". You can take a detailed look at the lists here.

I object to TimTurner's amendment, though, because it will include too many people who are staying temporarily in Atlasia, generally not paying taxes except sales tax, who have full intent to return to their home country, such as athlete visas, temporary agricultural workers, tourists etc. Areas which have many of these people in them at any given time will swell even if the people there have proper residences in other countries. My vote is Nay (on the proposed amendment).

On the other hand, I do believe that people who get most of the visas listed on the U.S. State Department's list of Immigrant Visas have shown indication that they'd like to live in Atlasia permanently, these people likely have homes, pay their bills, and are quite interested in the well-being of this country going forward. This category includes employment-based immigrants, returning residents, spouses of U.S. citizens, "Certain" family members of lawful permanent residents (the Atlasian Department of State will take care of this, of course), and diversity visas. If you have gripes with specific visas inside (maybe the religious workers or so) then we can discuss those individually.


Here's my proposed amendment:

End Rotten Boroughs Act

Section I. Title and Definitions
i. This bill may be known as the “End Rotten Boroughs Act”
ii. “Voter Eligible Population” (VEP) is defined as the citizen population and permanent resident population, as well as all those with a currently valid immigrant visa as defined by the Atlasian Department of State on this website (https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050201.html), that is not barred from voting on account of incarceration or mental incompetence.

Section II. Substance
i. All legislative districts in the Southern Region shall be drawn to have equal Voter Eligible Populations – allowing for up to a ten percent total deviation.
ii. The Southern Attorney General’s Office shall compile VEP data utilizing federal census data and Southern administrative records. This VEP data shall be compiled at least yearly and produced at the census block level.
iii.  Upon the production of the first set of VEP data, all governments within the Southern regional shall immediately redraw legislative boundaries to comply with this act. Thereafter, legislative boundaries must be redrawn at least once every decade.

Another issue is the mental incompetence clause, I'm not quite sure what that would entail to be frank, but that could be discussed in another amendment.


Maybe if the process for receiving permanent residency status (i.e. a green card) was made easier then we could remove this provision, but until then, I think it's best that we include it.

Opinions?

The clause was to account for these:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/voting-in-2020/guardianship-and-the-right-to-vote/

I like your amendment better than mine.

Agreed - I think it is a good middle ground.

[Biden his time]

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my prolonged absence from the chamber.

Do we know what percent of people who have Immigrant visas end up getting citizenship?

No, unfortunately. I looked hard for stats but couldn't find any on the internet.


I think the best cutoff for this is the U.S. State Department's categorization of "Immigrant Visas" and "Non-Immigrant Visas". You can take a detailed look at the lists here.

I object to TimTurner's amendment, though, because it will include too many people who are staying temporarily in Atlasia, generally not paying taxes except sales tax, who have full intent to return to their home country, such as athlete visas, temporary agricultural workers, tourists etc. Areas which have many of these people in them at any given time will swell even if the people there have proper residences in other countries. My vote is Nay (on the proposed amendment).

On the other hand, I do believe that people who get most of the visas listed on the U.S. State Department's list of Immigrant Visas have shown indication that they'd like to live in Atlasia permanently, these people likely have homes, pay their bills, and are quite interested in the well-being of this country going forward. This category includes employment-based immigrants, returning residents, spouses of U.S. citizens, "Certain" family members of lawful permanent residents (the Atlasian Department of State will take care of this, of course), and diversity visas. If you have gripes with specific visas inside (maybe the religious workers or so) then we can discuss those individually.


Here's my proposed amendment:

End Rotten Boroughs Act

Section I. Title and Definitions
i. This bill may be known as the “End Rotten Boroughs Act”
ii. “Voter Eligible Population” (VEP) is defined as the citizen population and permanent resident population, as well as all those with a currently valid immigrant visa as defined by the Atlasian Department of State on this website (https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM050201.html), that is not barred from voting on account of incarceration or mental incompetence.

Section II. Substance
i. All legislative districts in the Southern Region shall be drawn to have equal Voter Eligible Populations – allowing for up to a ten percent total deviation.
ii. The Southern Attorney General’s Office shall compile VEP data utilizing federal census data and Southern administrative records. This VEP data shall be compiled at least yearly and produced at the census block level.
iii.  Upon the production of the first set of VEP data, all governments within the Southern regional shall immediately redraw legislative boundaries to comply with this act. Thereafter, legislative boundaries must be redrawn at least once every decade.

Another issue is the mental incompetence clause, I'm not quite sure what that would entail to be frank, but that could be discussed in another amendment.


Maybe if the process for receiving permanent residency status (i.e. a green card) was made easier then we could remove this provision, but until then, I think it's best that we include it.

Opinions?

The clause was to account for these:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/voting-in-2020/guardianship-and-the-right-to-vote/

I like your amendment better than mine.

Agreed - I think it is a good middle ground.

Alright then

Motion for a final vote

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No objection.