A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 09:23:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE  (Read 54297 times)
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« on: June 29, 2009, 11:12:35 PM »

I'm opposed to a bicameral, non-universalist system; weren't a lot of objections raised to universalism because it would create too much bureaucratic nonsense?

If we persist in forcing regional Senate seats on Atlasia (even if they're called "Governors"), let's put them on equal footing with normal seats, not cripple them even more.  If regional Senate seats aren't competitive (and they aren't) then I don't think taking power away will help that any Tongue

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.

So regions would be like the old districts but with a different name and more power? Tongue

The whole point of regions was originally to have distinct regional flavors, akin to states IRL, to contrast with districts, which would help ensure equal representation for all.  Regions with district-like shifting boundaries would essentially render regions even more carbon-copy-like than they are now.

We won't be crippling regional Senate seats or forcing them on Atlasia. We will be removing them altogether, thus making governor elections more competitive. And the CoG will be on equal footing with the national Senate seats.

And distinct regions is fine, but you can't have some massive regions and some almost empty. There needs to be a mechanism to make sure elections in all five regions are competitive, so that no one region falls into inactivity and uncompetitiveness because it has too few members to sustain activity.

Perhaps only allow the regions to be changed if one region falls below a certain percentage of the national population. Or maybe a flat number.

Well, on a site I was before, they were refusing registrations for overpopulated regions, so the underpopulated regions were receving more new people.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2009, 12:31:04 AM »

Well, to create activity, we must create competitive elections. We must adjust the number of elected office avaliable to that.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2009, 12:45:12 AM »

And I'll try a third argument that I don't think has been used before: I agree with MasterJedi and NC Yankee in that it's possible that despite our best efforts these reforms will not fix anything involving activity in Atlasia.  So why not try to scale the size of the government to match the activity of Atlasia, rather than the other way around?  Having fewer positions will push the few members that we have who are always active into races against each other, and having those positions be national will ensure that all active members will be beneficial to all the nation rather than 1/5.

I hate to break it to you but that is the second arguement. I say scale the size of the game upward. We can still get just as complacent and uncompetative with the other systems you guys are proposing.

We may not even be able to fill all the seats you propose creating though. That's the bigger problem than uncompetitive elections. It is already hard enough filling the Mideast Assembly when people keep running for higher office/turning out to be socks of other people. Creating even more offices would result in that on a greater scale I fear.

Reducing the number of offices has the reverse affect. We would see real competition, voting for people because they are the best option, not the only option. We need to scale down the seats, regardless of activity level, in order to make sure we get some actually exciting elections around here.

Your plan transforms 17 important positions into 17 important positions. We don't scale down anything.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2009, 01:32:59 AM »

And I don't see an elected legislature succeeding in Pacific. Our universal Legislature has problems to work. Only the Governor, the President, me and Marokai are participing and we all have an higher office.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2009, 07:36:35 PM »

The Problem is you can have Anti-Regionalists be elected Governor.

Bad argument. Anit-regionalists can elected as Regional Senators, too.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2009, 04:58:56 PM »


We all agree than we must do something. The problem is to decide what to do.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2009, 07:30:52 PM »


Absolutely not.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2009, 09:00:41 PM »

For me, a CoG and an at-large 10 seats Senate is an good compromise.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2009, 12:17:56 AM »

I can't approve a reform who create a Council of Governors if Regional Senate seats are not abolished.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2009, 01:59:00 AM »

Does the Lief/MaxQue crowd have any thoughts regarding my compromise proposal?

Personally, I don't like imposing on regions the way to choose their representative.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2009, 12:15:52 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What in the hell is the point of changing these things then? More than half my problem with this proposal is because it's change for change's sake. If you're creating a 9-seat House elected through some means by the regions, why not just stick to the 5-Seat CoG idea which would spur, in theory, competition for Governor and Lt. Governor from the five regions (10 seats total) without changing any offices for some funky reason? You're just shuffling around offices for no reason. Why can't you just settle for a solution that's been hovering out there for awhile now? It's baffling.

Just let regions create legislatures or assemblies however they want, or not at all, who cares. All they end up as is a bunch of bench warmers passing pointless legislation anyhow. People can still orient themselves to the game without creating an unnecessary second house.

The reason I have gone towards this body and away from a CoG is because of the taboo associated with the CoG, making this proposal more viable. This also forces the regions to reform, which a CoG fails to do.

Thanks Purple State, you just explained why I am against that proposal. That forces the region to reform. The Mideast tried to reform in a way. Now, you are pushing all the regions in the same way. Each region can have a different system.

And this will break the 50-50 equilibrum of the regions and the nation. This will go 75-25 for the regions.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2009, 04:21:43 PM »
« Edited: July 14, 2009, 04:26:59 PM by Senator MaxQue »

I have two amendments.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 is replaced by ''The House shall be composed of a maximum of nine Representatives, each with a term of one month, distributed proportionally among the regions to the nearest whole number.''

Article 1, Section 4 shall read as follows:

   1. The Senate shall be divided into two classes: Class A and Class B, who shall be elected at-large.
   2. Elections for the seats in Class A shall be held in the months of February, June and October; Elections for the seats in Class B shall be held in the months of April, August and December.
   3. Regular elections to the Senate and Presidency shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on the second to last Thursday of the month in which they otherwise would have started and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning.
   4. If a vacancy shall occur in a Senate seat, then a special election shall be called to fill the remainder of the vacated term within one week of the vacancy occurring. Special elections to the Senate shall begin within ten days of the vacancy occurring and shall begin between midnight Eastern Standard Time on a Thursday and 0001 Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday thereafter, and shall conclude exactly 72 hours after beginning. However, if a vacancy shall occur when there is a person due to assume that office within two weeks, then no special election shall be necessary.
   5. The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Senate elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Senate shall be by public post.
   6. Those elected in ordinary elections to the Senate shall take office at noon Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday in the month after their election. Those elected in special elections to the Senate shall take office as soon as the result of their election has been formally declared.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2009, 08:48:42 PM »

Aye

Aye
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,625
Canada


« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2009, 12:06:51 AM »

     I'm not even really sure where we're going with this anymore.

We're going in a dead-end, PiT.
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 0.029 seconds with 13 queries.