A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE

[Vepres]

*Gives one-man standing ovation*

*Cough*... Anyway, I like your proposal. However, regional reform is very important. If you have any good ideas for regional reform, I will push for them in the Midwest.

[Vepres]

I oppose any attempts to force more boring, uncompetitive regional elections on people, but otherwise I agree with PS' basic points.

If the regions were reformed, people would be more engaged. What would be primaries like a mere week before the general election in the South and Pacific, so there are still good elections despite the lack of competitiveness in a general election.

This falls on the parties. They should accept, or even encourage primaries for the good of the game.

[Vepres]

Here's an idea I've been mulling over for awhile.

We have a 12 member senate composed of:

*5 regional senators.
*3 senators representing districts, which would be redrawn every x amount of time and have a mandate of roughly equal partisan ID in each of the districts.
*4 at-large seats.

They would have six month terms, but there would be an election every two months.

Just a thought anyway.

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thankfully, the abstract concepts {region} are not voting on this; it is a decision to be made by individual Atlasians, and I hope individual Atlasians are sensible enough to, at the very least, see the complete inactivity of the regional elections.  Now, as to whether the individual voters of, say, the, quote, "Dirty South" Region would support this, I don't know.  But my views are so constantly censured that I have to presume my ideas are wildly out of the mainstream, so I'd support voting on each one one-by-one.

I would like to try regional reform first and see if a Mideast-style region would produce more activity, or if the Mideast is just unusual.

[Vepres]

Districts were a terrible idea (as I recall, all the reasons people are using now to attack regional seats were used against them), but just having regional seats has proved to be no better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thankfully, the abstract concepts {region} are not voting on this; it is a decision to be made by individual Atlasians, and I hope individual Atlasians are sensible enough to, at the very least, see the complete inactivity of the regional elections.  Now, as to whether the individual voters of, say, the, quote, "Dirty South" Region would support this, I don't know.  But my views are so constantly censured that I have to presume my ideas are wildly out of the mainstream, so I'd support voting on each one one-by-one.

I would like to try regional reform first and see if a Mideast-style region would produce more activity, or if the Mideast is just unusual.

You know as well as I that if they didn't end up working out they would still be kept, as the motivation for reform will have died out.

Besides, I proposed having the Midwest be run more like a parliamentary/legislative system a year or two ago, and it didn't get off the ground.  The Midwest (and, I would argue, all the regions, but the Midwest is still the smallest I think?) is likely too small to sustain a 3-member legislature, but a two-member legislature is just silly when we have a "Governor" and "Lieutenant Governor" already.

Would you be willing to try to add a legislature to the region?

GMantis is the Governor, I am Lt. Governor, so that eliminates us. However, I could see a legislature with you Jas, and perhaps dead0men or something. Of course, you won't be limited to only "serious legislation".

[Vepres]

I would recommend eliminating the position of Lt. Gov. Has worked out fine in the Mideast thus far.

And then set up a legisature. Hmmm... good idea (though I would give up my first elected office , oh well, I could run for the assembly if it were to ever happen).

[Vepres]

I would recommend eliminating the position of Lt. Gov. Has worked out fine in the Mideast thus far.

And then set up a legisature. Hmmm... good idea (though I would give up my first elected office , oh well, I could run for the assembly if it were to ever happen).

The problem is, maintaining regional activity, even with a legislature, is difficult. Only so much legislation can be thought of and passed. This is the major difficulty I foresee.

Yeah, we are probably the only region too small to sustain a legislature. The Pacific and South probably could, and the Northeast might be able to.

[Vepres]

What other ideas are out there? How can we make ilv.'s ideas viable when it comes to a national referendum?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe. I would like to find a compromise so regions are still represented in some way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the current situation is fine. It wouldn't pass the Dirty South, and Bgwah might use his influence in the Pacific to halt it there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depends on what the other reforms are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Vepres]

Obviously we can't keep the current system of regional governors. However, I would still like the regions to be represented in some way on the national level.

[Vepres]

What about a 10-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member Council of Governors?

That would be a good idea actually.

However, the CoG couldn't propose legislation, only approve of legislation that passes in the senate. This way they have more time to focus on being governors (not that they do much).

What about requiring regions to have legislatures? An active region makes the governorship much more significant.

[Vepres]

What about a 10-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member Council of Governors?

Or possibly a 5-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member CoG. That way we maintain the same balance, but reduce the total number of seats in total. Governors do seem as redundant, less powerful/significant regional Senators.

We will see. The CoG keeps the Governors busy when the Legislatures aren't very active. I would prefer a 10 member all regional senate. A Governor, Lt Governor, 3 person legislature and 2 Senators equal 7 plus Judical officers. Thats 8 positions. Times by 5 is 40 regional officials. You add the Federal officials you are looking at 5 to 8 more. At most 48 elected officials. With 120 registered voters and almost 85 voted or would have voted(Sam Spade, ILV etc) I don't see how that isn't doable. Lets not forget people can move to other regions. It does cause a problem for my friends in the DA as 4 of there Senators(the next Senate) are in one region, but by the time this is innacted that could of course change. Every Region can support that as long as they have at least 12 to 15 members. This would also make Governors races very competative. This proposal really doesn't add any new positions except the legislature since each region has a Governor and there are now ten Senators anyway.

It also shuffles up populations without changing Regional boundaries. Don't know about the rest of you but I think I have found a plan I can finally endorse.

However I would prefer to limit the holding of multiple offices to Governors and since the CoG would be extention of that office its not really dual office holding.

Yes I know its slighly different from what Lief proposed and eliminates the National elected Senators in favor of 15 Regionally election officials, but we need to get the regions active as well, to ignore that half of the problem would not fix anything.

I will just say this. I'm interviewing Hashemite at the moment, and he has some pretty good ideas. Check the sentinel thread in 15-20 min.

[Vepres]

That is way too many positions and you underestimated the number of federal officials (Cabinet, SC). I would prefer the following layout:

Governor, three legislators and, perhaps, a sitting JO. That is 5 positions, times 5 is 25 regional positions, with about 15 federal officials (including Cabinet, SC, etc.) is 40 total positions to fill.

Basically, by removing regional Senators and raising Governors to a higher standing, it makes the seats more competitive. This would likely result in more active and caring Governors, which could result in regional reform. This would include some sort of legislature perhaps, and hopefully the removal of such unnecessary positions as Lt. Gov. and a standing regional judiciary. I would actually propose placing all regional cases under the federal court, but regional cases would be adjudicated according to regional law and federal cases according to federal law. The fewer seats available the better the elections will be.

As I said above, the Governors shouldn't be able to propose legislation, just vote on stuff that passed the senate. This way, they have time to focus on their regions, and they still maintain their identity as more of executives instead of glorified legislators.

[Vepres]

We don't need to get too complicated or harm ourselves more through reform than we help. We need to inspect the goals we want to achieve and find the right chords to strike that will reverberate through the game exactly as we want. Keep it simple. Expanding the number of offices would be harmful, as elections aren't competitive enough as it is. We need to make them more, not less.

A simple list of ideas that I support that have come up here as well as a few of my own:

1. Create a Council of Governors. It would function similarly to the Senate (details will be worked out later).

2. Eliminate Lt. Gov. and other relatively powerless offices. The speaker (or whatever you call him) of the regional assembly will function like a Lt. Gov. if the Governor is temporarily unable to hold office. Which leads me to...

3. Require a regional legislature to stimulate activity and to give newbies the ability to be involved.

4. For worst case scenarios, eg the Pacific region, have the ability to slightly change the regions. Requirements to do this will be worked out later.

5. Hold elections more regularly.

[Vepres]

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.

Unfortunately we're the only region I can foresee a legislature failing in.

However, slight changes to the regions could fix this problem.

[Vepres]

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

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?

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.

There are many details that will be different.

How about you contribute to the discussion instead of blindly criticizing anything that isn't parliamentary universalism. Accept the political realities or get out.

[Vepres]

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

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?

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.

[Vepres]

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

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?

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.

I would rather not do that. As Atlasia is fairly small we don't want a region full of newbies, that would diminish the region's influence.

[Vepres]

Jee... thanks, Vepres   Vepres, you're absolutely right, as usual. I should listen to you more often.

[Vepres]

Jee... thanks, Vepres   Vepres, you're absolutely right, as usual. I should listen to you more often. ilikeverin youlikeverin wealllikeverin hughughug With the recent Midwest amendments it's: Governor youGovernor WeallGovernor hughughug.

[Vepres]

I refuse to let anyone destroy the regions, or make really any changes at all, especially Lief and those that want a parliment.

All this can be done in the Senate rather easily. This constitutional convention has always been un-needed.

Do you support the idea of a Council of Governors, and what about regional legislatures?

[Vepres]

NC Yank, I believe we disagree on a fundamental piece here, which is you think most of this can be solved if we just let well enough alone, while I think the most effective way to increase activity is by using small, but targeted reforms to cause ripple affects that lead to game reform.

The truth is, if we could just leave the game to fix itself we wouldn't be in this situation right now. We can't just trust people to commit to activity and interest. We need to incentivize activity by making elections more exciting. Honestly, losing an election doesn't often end activity. Just look at Duke. When he was running for Senate he said that if he lost he would likely leave the game for good. Yet, he is still more active now than I ever remember him being during my time here. Meanwhile, non-competitive elections certainly promotes complacency and uncaring.

Did you not understand my previous post. I never advocated doing nothing. I advocate for some tough hard truths. Your tiny tweaks, or Lief massive reforms are barely good enough to wipe you A$$ with unless there is the activity and the wilingness to be active on the part of the posters here. I too have my set of reforms I want to see done at the nation level but I am also looking at the bigger picture and non of this will gurrantee and age of perpetual activity. We need more organised parties for one(I will bet you didn't even know that Dan was planning to abandon your party in August). We need to create a political culture in this game or all reforms are meaningless. Gutting regional offices isn't going to create this. All I see you wanting to create is perpetual elections for fewer offices. I see a snowball effect occuring that will put this game right back where we were, if we go with yours or any of these other ludicrous proposals. I never said we should trust people to be active, instead I hope that reforms I support will encourage that activity.

Your the one thinking small. You only went after the GM issue when it became a problem for the Senate, I was thinking about the effect on Atlasia as whole back in February.

But how do you propose we promote stronger parties or regional activity or primary opponents? Simply going into the parties and regions and saying, "Do this and that for the good of the game" will hardly have an impact. This game has massive inertia and trying to get people to follow you in a movement will likely fail, especially when it will likely weaken their own hold on power.

The only way to affect the change we really need is by implementing small changes that have large impacts. Cutting out the regional Senate seats and simply giving the Governors equal power in a CoG doesn't change that much on the surface (Governors are elected in the same way regional Senators are), but has major impacts as it relates to promoting regional activity. In addition, it actually strengthens the sway of the regions on the national level.

Insisting that we maintain or expand the number of offices is near sighted. We may have a growing game at the moment, but expanding the number of offices when we barely have competitive elections as it is just won't work. If the game does get much larger and elections are becoming too crowded down the road, we can always expand the Senate. But right now we need to make it more competitive, not less. I wouldn't mind keeping the current term lengths so as we don't simply run through Senators like candy, but we can't sustain 5 regional Senate seats that see zero or slight competition.

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

Agreed. Seriously the stuff being proposed, if one takes even a slight glance, will clearly help the game. Regional Senate seats are crap. Governors are crap. But by creating a separate chamber, a CoG, and removing regional senators, we can make newly competitive, activity-inducing positions for the game.

The parties must set a primary system. A candidate must go through it, even if they're the only one in the party. This makes people more likely to run in the primary. I think primaries would add a lot of energy to the game, especially in the pacific and south.

We still have to see what the impact the GM will have. I was talking BrandonH the other day and he said he'd address regional issues and laws.

[Vepres]

I want to get rid of regional offices because they're pointless and hurt the game. None of the regional senate seat supporters have yet given a reason why they should stay, despite their strange argument that the regions are for some reason deserving of representation.

Lt. Gov and CJO are pointless. However, the regional offices give newer players, or those with less time on their hands, and ability to participate in the game and hold an office. Besides, I personally like the idea of regionalism in general, if only for the fact that it can make politics more interesting.

[Vepres]

Yeah, I have no problem with regional legislatures. If you want to keep those, fine, whatever. I'm talking about regional Senate seats.

Ah. I thought you were referring to regional offices in general.

[Vepres]

@Vepres, we cannot force parties to conduct primaries, so regardless of how effective that would be, we can't initiate that by amending the Constitution.

I was directing that more at the party leaders. I realize you can't force them to do anything.

[Vepres]

The regions shouldn't be redrawn at a set time every year. However, under extraordinary circumstances, such as a Pacific-esque region appearing, congress should have the authority to redraw them.