SB 104-14: Senate Special Elections Amendment (Rejected) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 01:45:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SB 104-14: Senate Special Elections Amendment (Rejected) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SB 104-14: Senate Special Elections Amendment (Rejected)  (Read 1916 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


« on: July 28, 2021, 10:53:41 AM »
« edited: July 28, 2021, 10:57:24 AM by Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee »

I will oppose this proposal. The At-large Senators as a collective group are meant to represent the popular majority, but this is done in 11% increments if that makes sense, which itself ensures that various constituencies and ideologies are represented and have a seat at the decision making table.

The reason why we moved away from the pre-reset setup here was for good reason and that is because it basically ensured that for some months of time, the people who elected a given At-large representative would go unrepresented, by changing the electoral threshold by which that seat is chosen.

11, 11, 11, 51, 11

The basic effect of this is that the same group, same ideology would almost invariably win every special election ever, regardless of which seat they are filling. This would always then distort the distribution of seats in the At-large class, giving that side an extra seat, that would barring a turnout failure usually flip back (or another one in its place) to the people who held it previously.

51% cannot pick a seat that can be won with an 11% subgroup in a normal election, without screwing that sub group out of its representation. This basically turns thus into a power grab as such.

As for why the party chairs do it, there have been mechanism under the current setup, by which parties pick the members for the Chair to appoint through some kind of primary, but more importantly it comes down to timing and efficiency as a complex process could very well break down. Either way that determination should be made by the party bylaws not forced from the top.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2021, 11:12:16 AM »

I get that retro is in now, and in many places I welcome it, but we had slowly started to move towards the appointment model pre-reset and there are some things that were changed with rather good reason. It was one of Adam Griffin's biggest pet projects as he introduced it for end of terms where it was too late to hold a special and wanted to expand it to the whole term, that expansion came later on either with the rest or just before, but we were moving this way before that as well.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 13 queries.