A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE

[Fritz]

Okay fine, I withdraw the re-regioning idea. 

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Hashemite is right. Regions are not congressional districts to be redrawn.

Now, Fritz is right that this is a game. But he is also right that it was meant to simulate reality.

Leaving the regions as they are is the reality part. And this may be a game, but that does not mean that modifying the regions is a good idea.

By the way, it seems as though something similar to redrawing the regions was already tried in the past, through "districts" used for one half of the Senate seats. It was discarded, and it seems that redrawing the regions would be quite similar to redrawing the districts.

[Purple State]

Which again brings the question: What positions can we get rid of in order to stimulate more competitive and exciting elections?

Can we reduce the number of Cabinet positions? Maybe reduce the number of nationally elected seats? And maybe give the VP something like a vote, rather than a tie-breaking vote?

[Vepres]

Which again brings the question: What positions can we get rid of in order to stimulate more competitive and exciting elections?

Can we reduce the number of Cabinet positions? Maybe reduce the number of nationally elected seats? And maybe give the VP something like a vote, rather than a tie-breaking vote?

We have... counting... counting... 33 offices if you include judges and the GM.

Now, if you eliminate Lt. Governors, you have 29 offices
Eliminate regional judiciary and you have 26 offices
Let's assume a COG is implemented, and the Senate is reduced to 5. There are now 21 offices
But, if every region implements a legislature, you now have 33 offices again

So we have the same number of offices, but more of that activity is regional, which is one of the goals of this convention, no?

Just a thought.

[Fritz]

I support the proposal to eliminate regional Senate seats, and replace them with a Council of Governors.  So we would have two houses of five members each.  I would like to see this proposal drafted, passed by this Convention, and presented to the Senate as an amendment.

I also believe Congress should re-draw the regions, perhaps annually, based on a "census" provided by the Department of Forum Affairs.  Gerrymandering could of course be a problem, but hey, thats how it is in the real world!

[Purple State]

Which again brings the question: What positions can we get rid of in order to stimulate more competitive and exciting elections?

Can we reduce the number of Cabinet positions? Maybe reduce the number of nationally elected seats? And maybe give the VP something like a vote, rather than a tie-breaking vote?

We have... counting... counting... 33 offices if you include judges and the GM.

Now, if you eliminate Lt. Governors, you have 29 offices
Eliminate regional judiciary and you have 26 offices
Let's assume a COG is implemented, and the Senate is reduced to 5. There are now 21 offices
But, if every region implements a legislature, you now have 33 offices again

So we have the same number of offices, but more of that activity is regional, which is one of the goals of this convention, no?

Just a thought.

Some regions will implement an initiative structure, rather than a legislature.

But yes, the idea is to shift focus to legislative positions in the regions, making them more important and influential. I would actually like to make the regions more important by shifting some powers from the federal government to them as well.

Can I ask why pro-region actors dislike this proposal? What is the issue with a CoG? I just need to understand where you guys are coming from.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Which again brings the question: What positions can we get rid of in order to stimulate more competitive and exciting elections?

Can we reduce the number of Cabinet positions? Maybe reduce the number of nationally elected seats? And maybe give the VP something like a vote, rather than a tie-breaking vote?

We have... counting... counting... 33 offices if you include judges and the GM.

Now, if you eliminate Lt. Governors, you have 29 offices
Eliminate regional judiciary and you have 26 offices
Let's assume a COG is implemented, and the Senate is reduced to 5. There are now 21 offices
But, if every region implements a legislature, you now have 33 offices again

So we have the same number of offices, but more of that activity is regional, which is one of the goals of this convention, no?

Just a thought.

Some regions will implement an initiative structure, rather than a legislature.

But yes, the idea is to shift focus to legislative positions in the regions, making them more important and influential. I would actually like to make the regions more important by shifting some powers from the federal government to them as well.

Can I ask why pro-region actors dislike this proposal? What is the issue with a CoG? I just need to understand where you guys are coming from.

Read my PM. We can keep the Regional Senators and create the CoG without changing the number of offices. As for the legislatures, as you said some will want to keep the intiative structure, let the Regions handle that individually. We will definately have one down in the South and I am sure the NE and Pacific can support one as well. If they want to remove the Lt. Govs or whatever they can decided that on there own. They must decide what needs to be done to support an Assembly.

[Purple State]

I would support something like that. My only worry is that we still don't build up competitive elections, especially if legislatures start popping up. While the game has enough registered people to fill these positions, we don't have enough active members. That is the problem we face and the last thing I was are inactive governors as part of a CoG.

How can we work within your outline to make elections more competitive?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would support something like that. My only worry is that we still don't build up competitive elections, especially if legislatures start popping up. While the game has enough registered people to fill these positions, we don't have enough active members. That is the problem we face and the last thing I was are inactive governors as part of a CoG.

How can we work within your outline to make elections more competitive?

The effect on activity if it should be negative would be very minimal. To further asuage your uncertainty allow me to quote Ben Bernanke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

.

[Vepres]

I would support something like that. My only worry is that we still don't build up competitive elections, especially if legislatures start popping up. While the game has enough registered people to fill these positions, we don't have enough active members. That is the problem we face and the last thing I was are inactive governors as part of a CoG.

How can we work within your outline to make elections more competitive?

PR-STV could be used, much like the nation elections, so it's competitive if even 4 people run for 3 offices.

You can't force the parties to do anything, but I think they should all have a primary system, regardless if there is more than one candidate or not. This will encourage people to primary a candidate of their party.

I think a GM will help a lot too. (Once we start to differ from the US more)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would support something like that. My only worry is that we still don't build up competitive elections, especially if legislatures start popping up. While the game has enough registered people to fill these positions, we don't have enough active members. That is the problem we face and the last thing I was are inactive governors as part of a CoG.

How can we work within your outline to make elections more competitive?

PR-STV could be used, much like the nation elections, so it's competitive if even 4 people run for 3 offices.

You can't force the parties to do anything, but I think they should all have a primary system, regardless if there is more than one candidate or not. This will encourage people to primary a candidate of their party.

I think a GM will help a lot too. (Once we start to differ from the US more)

Yes as soon as Brandon gets to show the effect of policies on the economy and foriegn affairs things would certainly become interesting.

[Vepres]

Come on... Do something.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Come on... Do something.

What do you want done?

[MaxQue]

Come on... Do something.

We all agree than we must do something. The problem is to decide what to do.

[Vepres]

At this point, and maybe Purple State will disagree, I think we should take all of the ideas thrown around in this thread and have the delegates vote on each one. Then amend our current constitution to include them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

At this point, and maybe Purple State will disagree, I think we should take all of the ideas thrown around in this thread and have the delegates vote on each one. Then amend our current constitution to include them.

     Fair enough. Better than debating them endlessly without any real progress.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Keep in mind that me and Purple State are still trying to come to an agreement. The hang up is one how to make the Governors races more competative without removing Regional Senate seats. I will support the CoG as a why to make the Governors positions more valuable, but the Regional Senate seats is where I draw the line. I am willing to let the Regions decide whether to eliminate the Lt. Govs, and Judicial officers to help them support an assembly. For those that keep the Judicial officers we need to give them some sort of authority so they have something to do. He is willing to except this if there is something more we can do to make Governors elections more competative.

Purple State said something about not being on today.


If I haven't made this clear if the Senate attempts to amend the current Constitution to remove Regional Senates or this convention passes something that doesn't include them I will do everything in my power to ensure that it fails miserably.

[Purple State]

Sorry all. Religion before forum.

I have to ask everyone to give this time. While it would seem appealing to simply gather the hodge-podge and bring it to a vote, you risk simply ending up with a mess, rather than any coherent plan to promote competition and activity. Bear in mind that these reforms aren't meant to mean much at face value. Rather, the potential impact that they have in promoting wider, top-down change is what we must ensure. And that takes time.

@NC Yank (and everyone else, really):

I would agree to apportion far more power to the regions (for their courts, jurisdiction, etc.), as well as establish a CoG, if we could eliminate the regional Senate seats. The issue really is I hesitate to add seats in the current, non-competitive environment here. That said, I ran my Senate campaign on a platform promoting regional sovereignty, and I meant it.

Let me outline the benefits to a CoG-chamber without regional Senate seats:

• Each region gets to choose how to elect its governor.
• We eliminate the redundancy of a region-wide vote on its Senator followed by a region-wide vote on its Governor.
• Provides greater power to regions at the federal level than the status quo (at present, regions need all 5 senators to vote Nay to block a bill, a CoG would only need 3 in agreement).
• Makes Governors more important in elections, prompting competition, especially with the regional senator position removed.

With all that, I have no problem moving certain powers, that we can work out if you accept this premise, from federal domain to the regions. In my view, this would make Governors even more important, as well as promote the creation of coherent regional legislative structures (whether legislature or initiative).

[ilikeverin]

While I am at least sympathetic to the people who want a regional legislature, I can't understand for the life of me why there are regional judiciaries.

[Hash]

Yes. Regional judiciaries are entirely useless. What was the last time they did something?

[Purple State]

That's why we should either: a) eliminate them or b) empower them.

[Hash]

Option A, por favor.

[Fritz]

We actually have regional judiciaries?  Who is on them?

[Hash]

We actually have regional judiciaries?  Who is on them?

Three regions, I think, have a chief justice. They don't do anything at all.

It's extremely stupid to argue in their favour, even the regionalists.

[ilikeverin]

Yeah.  And there's no reason the Supreme Court would not be able to take up their "caseload", because said caseload does not exist.  That's why the Midwest devolved our judicial branch to the federal level.  It's never been used!

I'm not sure it would make sense to put a clause in the constitution to specifically abolish them, but I would absolutely oppose any attempts to give regional judiciaries any power.