SB 118-18: Replacing Subregional Seats with Class II Regional Seats - Failed

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Senate Resolution
To replace subregional seats with a second class of regional seats

The Second-Place Finisher in the DDNN Entrance Poll

Be It Resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled, that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the Regions, the Fifth Constitution of Atlasia shall be amended as follows:

1. The several states of this Republic shall be apportioned among three contiguous, autonomous Regions. Each region shall be further subdivided into two subregions.
2. The northern Region shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Vermont, and Atlasian Virgin Islands.
i. The Northeastern Subregion shall consist of the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Atlasian Virgin Islands.
ii. The Great Lakes Subregion shall consist of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
3. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
i. The Upper Southern Subregion shall consist of the states of Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
ii. The Deep Southern Subregion shall consist of the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and Texas
4. The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, Arizona, Atlasian Samoa, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
i. The Mountain West Subregion shall consist of the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
ii. The Pacific Subregion shall consist of the states of Alaska, Atlasian Samoa, California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington.

(...)

2. In addition, no subregional senate election shall admit as eligible voters any person having resided in any other region within the fifty-six days prior to the commencement of the election. All persons registered in a subregion shall have a right to eligiblity for ballot access and a right to popular election to the subregional senate seat.

(...)

3. Aside from the exceptions as laid out by this section, no region-wide or subregional election or referendum may deny any person the right to vote who would, if a federal election were held concurrently, be eligible to vote in such an election.

(...)

(...)

3. The Senate shall consist of eighteen fifteen Senators; nine elected at large and one two elected for each region and each subregion.

4. No person shall be a Senator who has not attained two hundred or more posts, nor whose account is fewer than fourteen hundred and forty hours old, nor shall any person be a regional or subregional senator who is not a citizen of the region or subregion they are chosen to represent.

(...)

2. The manner of election for regional Senators shall be as follows:
i. Each region shall elect a Senator for a term of four months by popular election of the region’s residents administered by the regional government in a manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. There shall be two classes of regional senators. Regional Senate elections for class I Senators shall be held in the months of February, June, and October. Regional Senate elections for class II Senators shall be held in the months of April, August, and December.
ii. Regional Senate vacancies occurring more than thirty days prior to the end of the term shall be filled by special election of the region’s residents administered by the regional government within twenty days of the vacancy.
iii. Regional Senate vacancies occurring within thirty days of the end of the term, as well as the interim between a vacancy and a prescribed special election, may be filled in accordance with the laws of the region in question; should no such law exist then the region’s executive shall have the power to make such an appointment.

3. The manner of election for subregional Senators shall be as follows:
i. Each subregion shall elect a Senator for a term of four months by popular election of the subregion’s residents administered by its constituent regional government in a manner prescribed by the legislature thereof. Subegional Senate elections shall be held in the months of April, August, and December.
ii. Subregional Senate vacancies occurring more than thirty days prior to the end of the term shall be filled by a special election of the subregion’s residents administered by its constituent regional government within twenty days of the vacancy.
iii. Subregional Senate vacancies occurring within thirty days of the end of the term shall be filled by the subregional Senator elected for the following term immediately upon conclusion of their election.

(...)

This Constitutional Amendment eliminates subregional seats in favor of a second class of regional seats.

Sponsor: Dwarven Dragon
Occupying: Slot 19

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Absolutely not. This adds too much redundancy without even cutting the "too many offices" we supposedly have. It will also make maps of elections in this game more boring and make it harder to compete in elections with huge electorates. It undoes the gains of the Fifth Constitution and takes us backwards to the bad times of the game.

[Pyro]

As with SB 118-17, this will need some real discussion before I come to a decision.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This game lacks competitive and truly meaningful campaigns and elections. Slates are established last-minute (or not at all), we often spend the last few days before the deadline aggressively courting people to run (and sometimes fail at that, resorting to write-ins), and voters often go to the polls feeling they have little real choice due to often small fields for a seat allocation that is too large for the field that has chosen to run. Once we do get Senators elected, several often go inactive because their re-election seems assured, so why actually do the job you were elected to do?

I believe the way to resolve these problems is to restructure the Senate to ensure competitiveness, encourage real campaigns, and empower voters to make informed decisions. In the October entrance poll, I tested a variety of proposals directly with the voters. They were provided the following proposals as options, and could indicate support for any number of them or reject them all.

Options:
Reducing At-Large Seats to 7 (16 member senate)
Reducing At-Large Seats to 6 (15 member senate)
Flexible At-Large Seats (6-11 depending on the # of candidates declared) (15-20 member senate)
Removing At-Large Regional Seats (15 member senate)
Removing Subregional Seats (12 member senate)
Removing Subregional Seats and adding a second class of Regional Seats (15 member senate)
Removing At-Large Regional Seats and 2 At-Large Seats (13 member Senate)
Removing At-Large Regional Seats and 3 At-Large Seats (12 member Senate)
Removing Subregional Seats, add second class of regional, and remove 2 at-large (13 member Senate)
Removing Subregional Seats, add second class of regional, and remove 3 at-large (12 member Senate)
None of the Above

Results:



The top two proposals were very close in their level of support, and are not mutually exclusive, so both are being brought for separate debates and votes.

This proposal is designed to re-concentrate regional seats where competitiveness can best exist. Rather than focusing outsized attention on 'districts' that have proven to only empower the dominant party, this proposal provides every voter in a region influence over each of their senate seats and allows the widest possible avenue of candidate fields and electorates for each seat. It also reduces the number of total regional seats to help ensure adequate staffing and avoid one candidate for one seat elections.

This adds too much redundancy without even cutting the "too many offices" we supposedly have.

The Adoption of this proposal in isolation would actually reduce the Senate from 18 seats to 15. (3 regional + 6 subregional currently ---> 6 regional under this).

[Joseph Cao]

"Outsized" attention, of course, being any attention at all.

Every voter already has influence over two regional Senate seats, regional seats already "empower the dominant party," one-candidate elections are just as common for all-regional seats as subregional ones. Explain what the issue with singling out subregional seats is?

And what the deuce is "adequate staffing" supposed to mean?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The commonality of one candidate elections for non-at-large senate seats is caused by an abundance of regional seats. By reducing the number of regional seats avaliable, and having a full region avaliable to fill each one, we should avoid this problem. By adequate staffing, I mean consistent candidate interest to fill the seats avaliable and have competition for each. With the current number of regional seats, that clearly doesn't exist.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

The commonality of one candidate elections for non-at-large senate seats is caused by an abundance of regional seats. By reducing the number of regional seats avaliable, and having a full region avaliable to fill each one, we should avoid this problem. By adequate staffing, I mean consistent candidate interest to fill the seats avaliable and have competition for each. With the current number of regional seats, that clearly doesn't exist.

Candidate interest is derived from the prospects of believing one can win a senate race which is more difficult when having to contest a much larger electorate. There were plenty of instances of single candidate elections during the fourth constitution (usually with some token write in as a protest vote for the sake of turning out opposition votes). Having subregions is better for providing more adequate representation for people since fundamentally the political outcome (partisanship) matters more to people than the process. There's not much there can be done to change the culture here. I don't see how this reform helps anything.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Under current law, 6 candidates need to be recruited, then 12 another 2 months later, for a total of 18 assuming no repeats, for contested elections to exist. This drops that number to 12.

As for the "candidates only run when they are favored" argument, no reform can fully solve a party's internal matters, but I would generally encourage people to not assume too much from our electorate. Lab/Pax ran arguably too many candidates this past cycle and came within a small handful votes of electing all of them. But yes, at the end of the day, the reform can only reduce the difficulty of the task of avoiding uncontested races, but that's all any reform in this area could do.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

This bill has my full support. Sub-regional seats have got to go, and a return to something closer to pre-Fifth Constitution organization would be an improvement in my opinion. Grateful for the sponsor doing a poll to get to the bottom of what changes people want to see, even if it is not super representative of the whole population.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I move to table this.

[reagente]

I object.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Noted, although without a second, there's no need for us to do anything on the motion made.

[Joseph Cao]

Seconding the motion.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Question is on the motion.

Nay

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye

[DKrol]

Nay

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Abstain

[reagente]

Nay

[Vice President Christian Man]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Aye

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

Nay

[Joseph Cao]

Aye.

[Pyro]

Nay. I am undecided on this proposal, but I don't think tabling is appropriate, here.

[Coastal Elitist]

Nay

[Dr. MB]

nay