ATLAS: Atlasians Thinking, Leading, Acting, Solving

[Vepres]

I was just reading over the constitutions of the states and realized that none, save the Mideast's, had an elected legislative body (somebody else may have pointed this out earlier). If every region had an elected legislator, the elections would be far more meaningful, and there would be more activity in the regions.

Why aren't propositions enough?  If it weren't for propositions, you wouldn't've been able to jump right into Midwestern politics and introduce a bill.

I realize that. Here's my reasoning. The Mideast is currently the most active region, they have an elected legislature, therefore, an elected legislature increases activity.

Does every region have enough active people to hold down a legislative body?

Perhaps if they had an elected legislative body they would be more active. No? We should test this in one of the regions, and see if it increases activity.

[tmthforu94]

My quick little thought.
If there were more positions open, I think people would try to be more active to get that position. For examply, I stayed in the shadows for a while, because I didn't think I'd have a prayer at winning an elected office. But, with the upcoming Senate election, one of our Assemblymen will be leaving. Since there will be an opening, I've gotten heavily involded in Atlasia, mainly so I could get that seat and have a stronger voice in the government.

[ilikeverin]

I was just reading over the constitutions of the states and realized that none, save the Mideast's, had an elected legislative body (somebody else may have pointed this out earlier). If every region had an elected legislator, the elections would be far more meaningful, and there would be more activity in the regions.

Why aren't propositions enough?  If it weren't for propositions, you wouldn't've been able to jump right into Midwestern politics and introduce a bill.

I realize that. Here's my reasoning. The Mideast is currently the most active region, they have an elected legislature, therefore, an elected legislature increases activity.

School shootings decrease in the summer.  Ice cream sales increase in the summer.  Therefore school shootings decrease ice cream sales, or perhaps ice cream sales inhibit school shootings.

[Vepres]

I was just reading over the constitutions of the states and realized that none, save the Mideast's, had an elected legislative body (somebody else may have pointed this out earlier). If every region had an elected legislator, the elections would be far more meaningful, and there would be more activity in the regions.

Why aren't propositions enough?  If it weren't for propositions, you wouldn't've been able to jump right into Midwestern politics and introduce a bill.

I realize that. Here's my reasoning. The Mideast is currently the most active region, they have an elected legislature, therefore, an elected legislature increases activity.

School shootings decrease in the summer.  Ice cream sales increase in the summer.  Therefore school shootings decrease ice cream sales, or perhaps ice cream sales inhibit school shootings.

Touche.

Still, it would be an interesting to experiment with an elected legislature in one of the regions and see the effects.

[Purple State]

I was just reading over the constitutions of the states and realized that none, save the Mideast's, had an elected legislative body (somebody else may have pointed this out earlier). If every region had an elected legislator, the elections would be far more meaningful, and there would be more activity in the regions.

Why aren't propositions enough?  If it weren't for propositions, you wouldn't've been able to jump right into Midwestern politics and introduce a bill.

I realize that. Here's my reasoning. The Mideast is currently the most active region, they have an elected legislature, therefore, an elected legislature increases activity.

School shootings decrease in the summer.  Ice cream sales increase in the summer.  Therefore school shootings decrease ice cream sales, or perhaps ice cream sales inhibit school shootings.

The thing is, elected positions make people (hopefully) try to act in ways that ensure reelection. Providing a measure of responsibility or ownership of the region gives people a reason to participate. That's what an elected legislature does.

[ilikeverin]

I was just reading over the constitutions of the states and realized that none, save the Mideast's, had an elected legislative body (somebody else may have pointed this out earlier). If every region had an elected legislator, the elections would be far more meaningful, and there would be more activity in the regions.

Why aren't propositions enough?  If it weren't for propositions, you wouldn't've been able to jump right into Midwestern politics and introduce a bill.

I realize that. Here's my reasoning. The Mideast is currently the most active region, they have an elected legislature, therefore, an elected legislature increases activity.

School shootings decrease in the summer.  Ice cream sales increase in the summer.  Therefore school shootings decrease ice cream sales, or perhaps ice cream sales inhibit school shootings.

The thing is, elected positions make people (hopefully) try to act in ways that ensure reelection. Providing a measure of responsibility or ownership of the region gives people a reason to participate. That's what an elected legislature does.

I'd think it would be just happenstance; right now the most active Atlasians happen to be in the Mideast.  The Midwest had its share of referenda when it was active, and you can see how large the Pacific Legislature has gotten in the Voting Booth subforum.

Alternatively, it could be argued that in the present political system active citizens caused the legislature (or at least perpetuate its existence); citizens from regions that don't have an elected legislature aren't demanding one because they're not active enough to want it.

I'm inclined towards the former explanation, because of the small sample size, but eh.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

[Purple State]

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

This is my thought as well. And those who are elected feel some responsibility to be active and pass legislation.

[tmthforu94]

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

This is my thought as well. And those who are elected feel some responsibility to be active and pass legislation.

Which is why I think the number of assemblymen should be increased. It stinks that some people who might want to get elected would lose an election, even though they really want it. I've gotten active, for example, because after the June elections, there will be an open seat in the Assembly, and I want it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

This is my thought as well. And those who are elected feel some responsibility to be active and pass legislation.

Which is why I think the number of assemblymen should be increased. It stinks that some people who might want to get elected would lose an election, even though they really want it. I've gotten active, for example, because after the June elections, there will be an open seat in the Assembly, and I want it.

     While it is disappointing to be on the losing end of that, we need some losers if we're to have exciting elections. Considering the lack of competition that Assembly seats draw, increasing the number of seats would hardly help, especially given the lack of people to staff them all. The Mideast was originally going to have five assemblymen. One of the first, if not the first, amendments they passed was to reduce the number to three when they realized how unfeasible it is to find five citizens to hold Assembly seats.

[Devilman88]

Plus most of the active Mideast members are in the Senate or hold and office already!

[tmthforu94]

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

This is my thought as well. And those who are elected feel some responsibility to be active and pass legislation.

Which is why I think the number of assemblymen should be increased. It stinks that some people who might want to get elected would lose an election, even though they really want it. I've gotten active, for example, because after the June elections, there will be an open seat in the Assembly, and I want it.

     While it is disappointing to be on the losing end of that, we need some losers if we're to have exciting elections. Considering the lack of competition that Assembly seats draw, increasing the number of seats would hardly help, especially given the lack of people to staff them all. The Mideast was originally going to have five assemblymen. One of the first, if not the first, amendments they passed was to reduce the number to three when they realized how unfeasible it is to find five citizens to hold Assembly seats.

Well, it would increase activity. I think this comes down to whether you want more activity or more exciting elections. I happen to want more activity in Atlasia, therefore, I support expanding the number of Assemblymen. If someone could find a way to do both, I would be happy with that as well.

[Purple State]

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

This is my thought as well. And those who are elected feel some responsibility to be active and pass legislation.

Which is why I think the number of assemblymen should be increased. It stinks that some people who might want to get elected would lose an election, even though they really want it. I've gotten active, for example, because after the June elections, there will be an open seat in the Assembly, and I want it.

     While it is disappointing to be on the losing end of that, we need some losers if we're to have exciting elections. Considering the lack of competition that Assembly seats draw, increasing the number of seats would hardly help, especially given the lack of people to staff them all. The Mideast was originally going to have five assemblymen. One of the first, if not the first, amendments they passed was to reduce the number to three when they realized how unfeasible it is to find five citizens to hold Assembly seats.

Well, it would increase activity. I think this comes down to whether you want more activity or more exciting elections. I happen to want more activity in Atlasia, therefore, I support expanding the number of Assemblymen. If someone could find a way to do both, I would be happy with that as well.

I believe you extended my logic too far.

The reason legislatures increase activity is because it gives members of the Assembly the need to remain active in order to secure reelection. If the elections are wholly uncompetitive (as a larger Assembly would ensure), there would be no such incentive to do their job. There needs to be a proper balance of competitive, but not restrictive elections to ensure that there are losers, but enough winners to keep activity going.

[Devilman88]

I understand Bayh '10 that you want to be active and get into the Assembly, but you have to wait until due time. You will get there, trust me. Take this time to read over the laws of the Mideast and Atlasia and start forming bill and acts you would like to see pass in the Assembly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think a really great idea has been suggested here. That is advertise in the hopes of getting 300 or 400 registered voters. Even if you fall short we would still have a substantial increase in players.

So far we have seen several individual proposals. I think now we should put the some of the pieces together and see what the picture is

1. GM reform
2. Advertise widely to increase membership
3. Look at creating new offices such as more regional assemblies once the membership is there for it.

We have to go one step at a time of course but I am most comfortable with this approach.

The mideast has enough offices it doesn't need to create any. It could use some more active and vibrant members though to make elections more competative.

In the southeast I am convinced the membership is there for an assembly they are just bored, or have no hope of advancement for lack of opportunity.  I have been debating for a while whether to introduce a intiative creating an assembly in the Southeast, at least it would be more productive then the kind of stuff we usually vote on (Creating financial anarchy or yet another monument to KoTBP).  There were competative elections in the Southeast last year and I am confident that can happen again. I am still hopefull for an opponent, though I am not nieve enough to be sure it will occur.

I am opposed to decreasing the number of regions. I think if that were to happen it would only make our problem worse. How do you create fewer regions? The regions themselves would have to vote on it and the two who are most likely to be chopped up would vote against it. So the most likely attempt to reduce the regions would the simply not create them all in the new consitution. I haven't had time to check up on the convention these last two days so I don't know whats come of that. I feel that this would be a grave mistake.

[tmthforu94]

This is how I'm recruiting more members...
I've been on several sites where one party dominated the forum, and the mods were very biased. Both Democrats and Republicans have been angered by it. I'm trying to get them to join Atlas, since we have simply amazing mods that are fair and reasonable. I've gotten 2 people to sign up today, and I'm looking for more in the upcoming days.

[Hash]

People should by all means encourage anybody to sign up, but not necessarily telling them to join their party. If I ever get somebody to join, something I suck at doing, I'd direct them to the thread on parties for them to choose.

[Vepres]

People should by all means encourage anybody to sign up, but not necessarily telling them to join their party. If I ever get somebody to join, something I suck at doing, I'd direct them to the thread on parties for them to choose.

Yes, if you see a newbie in other parts of the Atlas forum, and they seem somewhat active, PM them about Atlasia, I bet we could add 20-30 members this way in just a few short months.

[Purple State]

Seeing as discussion has slowed down I will roll out the next topic. Before each new topic, I will provide a recap of what was discussed on the previous issue.

Election and campaign reform
While we drifted pretty far off topic, we came up with a number of interesting discussions, as highlighted below:

• Regions = It was proposed that we change the number of regions. Consensus seemed to indicate we reduce or maintain the number of regions, but ensure that each region has a legislature to allow for members to further participate and be active.
• Activity = The main reason increasing the number of regions or seats in the legislatures was not supported was the lack of activity in Atlasia. To help with this, it was widely supported that we increase membership and activity by: maintaining an active GM; advertise, advertise, advertise; allow non-executive officeholders to hold dual offices; open more regional legislatures.

The next topic is Dual office holding and term limits.

This is a slightly more specific discussion than our last and so will probably be a shorter discussion. However, something that has not often been discussed, but is occasionally mentioned, is the removal of term limits or the allowance of dual office holding, each with or without caveats. What would be the best solution for each and why?

[Vepres]

I guess I will start.

Term limits: This is difficult. On one hand, eliminating the term limits might help retain more of the older more active members, as they would only lose office upon retirement of the loss of an election. On the other hand, what if an extremely popular, almost unbeatable person becomes president without term limits? This would essentially ruin the best part of the game. I'll let more experienced Atlasians expand on this topic.

Dual Office Holding: I don't think this is a good idea personally. We would end up with a handful of elites monopolizing all offices. Newbies like myself and Bayh'10 would have to challenge incumbents to gain office (though I am doing it anyway). While it is fun to be the underdog, it is good for newbies to feel like they have a shot at a office right away (whether real or perceived).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I guess I will start.

Term limits: This is difficult. On one hand, eliminating the term limits might help retain more of the older more active members, as they would only lose office upon retirement of the loss of an election. On the other hand, what if an extremely popular, almost unbeatable person becomes president without term limits? This would essentially ruin the best part of the game. I'll let more experienced Atlasians expand on this topic.

Dual Office Holding: I don't think this is a good idea personally. We would end up with a handful of elites monopolizing all offices. Newbies like myself and Bayh'10 would have to challenge incumbents to gain office (though I am doing it anyway). While it is fun to be the underdog, it is good for newbies to feel like they have a shot at a office right away (whether real or perceived).

I think Vepres is right on this. The only thing I would add is that a case may be made to increase Term limits as well but I certainly would not be one to support that, it may lead to new members but the risk is not being able to fill offices which we ran into in the Mideast(Before the eliminate the Lt. Gov.) and in Feburary when Smid ran for the Senate and it was an open question as to whether someone would run for Gov. so he wouldn't have too. I think that is the worst situation possible.

[Vepres]

Bump.

How about more discussion, these are very interesting ideas.

[Purple State]

I guess I will start.

Term limits: This is difficult. On one hand, eliminating the term limits might help retain more of the older more active members, as they would only lose office upon retirement of the loss of an election. On the other hand, what if an extremely popular, almost unbeatable person becomes president without term limits? This would essentially ruin the best part of the game. I'll let more experienced Atlasians expand on this topic.

Dual Office Holding: I don't think this is a good idea personally. We would end up with a handful of elites monopolizing all offices. Newbies like myself and Bayh'10 would have to challenge incumbents to gain office (though I am doing it anyway). While it is fun to be the underdog, it is good for newbies to feel like they have a shot at a office right away (whether real or perceived).

I agree that term limits is a tough one. While the limits do cycle out experienced members, they also allows for the occasional shake-up of a good chunk of the government, making for exciting elections and allowing up-and-comers to advance through the ranks. I agree we do need term limits, but only on certain positions (executive positions) and not too restrictive.

To a certain degree I agree with your dual office holding assessment and if we continue to gain new and excited members in the game it won't be necessary. My original proposal to allow this was rooted in a period a few months ago when it appeared incredibly difficult to replace retiring members with fresh faces. Assuming the recruitment initiatives continue to work, this won't be necessary. We just have to hope that the new users continue to participate and don't end up being flashes in the pan.

[Vepres]

To a certain degree I agree with your dual office holding assessment and if we continue to gain new and excited members in the game it won't be necessary. My original proposal to allow this was rooted in a period a few months ago when it appeared incredibly difficult to replace retiring members with fresh faces. Assuming the recruitment initiatives continue to work, this won't be necessary. We just have to hope that the new users continue to participate and don't end up being flashes in the pan.

Bayh'10 and I have been attempting to recruit newbies, but so far, none have proved to be active or interested. I think we need every public office holder and every candidate for public office to attempt to recruit newbies.

On the subject of newbies, we need a more detailed Introduction to Atlasia thread which includes a basic explanation of government proceedings, elections, and voting.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

I guess I will start.

Term limits: This is difficult. On one hand, eliminating the term limits might help retain more of the older more active members, as they would only lose office upon retirement of the loss of an election. On the other hand, what if an extremely popular, almost unbeatable person becomes president without term limits? This would essentially ruin the best part of the game. I'll let more experienced Atlasians expand on this topic.

Dual Office Holding: I don't think this is a good idea personally. We would end up with a handful of elites monopolizing all offices. Newbies like myself and Bayh'10 would have to challenge incumbents to gain office (though I am doing it anyway). While it is fun to be the underdog, it is good for newbies to feel like they have a shot at a office right away (whether real or perceived).

I agree that term limits is a tough one. While the limits do cycle out experienced members, they also allows for the occasional shake-up of a good chunk of the government, making for exciting elections and allowing up-and-comers to advance through the ranks. I agree we do need term limits, but only on certain positions (executive positions) and not too restrictive.

To a certain degree I agree with your dual office holding assessment and if we continue to gain new and excited members in the game it won't be necessary. My original proposal to allow this was rooted in a period a few months ago when it appeared incredibly difficult to replace retiring members with fresh faces. Assuming the recruitment initiatives continue to work, this won't be necessary. We just have to hope that the new users continue to participate and don't end up being flashes in the pan.

Agreed.