When should the Regions decide?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

NPC state and local elections resulted in some of the highest level of engagement and player activity we've seen in years, successfully conducted by more than one GM. Though I take responsibility for not properly addressing its long term viability and its legal issues, to call them a massive failure is a bad-faith argument.

I won't judge on the specific merits of each cause, but speaking from experience, I'm grateful the federal government has been there to curb some of the insane stuff the regions (all of them, at various points and contexts, and even from different ideological points of view) churn out from time to time. I would even argue that, in some cases, excessive regional autonomy has led to otherwise avoidable problems or even crisis.

What kind of engagement though? I was told if you just post "I am campaigning in Alabama. Vote Labor" and no one else makes a similar post in Alabama, the Alabama is now Labor. It sounds devoid of factors other than just who makes the most low-engagement spam posts. And as a result we just had to Retcon (by a 17-1 vote) a storyline where NPC state governments that were so out of step with the reality of the Region nullified laws in a most perplexing manner (such as the South Carolina government threatening to secede due to their love of bestiality sex toys).

Requiring simulated elections for NPCs puts a big strain on the GMs to keep regular and can lead to some nonsensical outcomes, like the South having a 3-1 Federalist registration advantage yet being like 3rd place as far as party control over States because 2 years ago WB made a youtube video.

Im not trying to indict anyone here, its not like ive never had bad ideas, just pointing out that that idea was tried and resulted in more problems than solutions. Thats why I think the Regions should figure out the internal mechanisms within their boundaries. Then maybe 1 Region does do activity simulated elections, perhaps another adopts a formula, and a third just leaves it to the GMs. We can experiment that way and see what works best.

I may be wrong here, but isn't this already the case? The GM simulations were, to my recollection, based on authorizations by regional law, not federal.

The elections were authorized to occur at the regional level, meaning regions decided stuff like term length and # of seats in each legislature, but 100% of the simulation/results itself was controlled by the [federal] GM - the regions did not control the formula for how campaigning translated into success.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Abortion (To restore the decades long precedent from the ZuWo case)
Yes

Agriculture Policy (Which the Federalist Papers argued was not a federal power)
No

Capital Punishment (Which the Regions are denied the power to decide)
Yes

Parole Eligibility (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)
Undecided

Maximum Sentences (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)
Undecided

Right to Work (Which Labor tried to deny to the Regions)
No

Minimum Wage (Which is geographically biased)
Should be just like RL, federal govt. sets a minimum standard and regions can go higher if they want

Maximum weekly hours (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)
No

Education Policy (Which has traditionally been a Regional function)
No

Energy Exploration (Which is a localized decision that Labor tried to deny to the Regions)
Undecided

Mining Policy (Which the Federalist Papers argued was not a federal power)
Yes

Gun Control (Which Labor tried to mandate on the Regions)
No. The assault weapons ban stopped many mass shootings while it was in place.

State and Local Elections (Which was a massive failure when conducted by the GM)
Yes, if this is just the state and local. I would oppose any unique exclusion of voters from regional elections.