Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[Poirot]

The At-Large election has some advantages. It is one big electoral event that is for all the nation, the only one aside from the presidential election. It usually gets high participation. Since it is one national election it is easier to organize a debate and have the focus on that. Since it is addressed to all voters it is worth doing a public campaign for a candidate. For candidates it is a chance to come in contact with people in all the nation. At-Large offers a different way for someone to enter the Senate while districts are more identical regional Senate election. Someone who is not popular or not well-known or who is less mainstream but backed by a big party can be elected in At-Large.

The order of preference on the ballott matters because there could be a surplus to be distributed and that could influence the result. Not sure with districts we will get many candidates in each race and the order of preference might not be a factor if it's like regional elections when you only have two candidates. In At-Large it is easier to campaign for yourself while in a two person election you are almost forced to run against your opponent if the race is competitive.

I hope we keep the At-Large. There is risks with the districts, it all depends what those drawing them will do. If the districts are not competitive, not many candidates will run and some districts will be boring. It could lead to unpopular incumbents being put in unfavorable districts. It could lead to more alliances between parties and that could kill competition. If small party members are not put together there is little chance for a small political party to win a district and be represented in the Senate without the desire of a big one. Since a district will regroup people from different areas, the camapigning could be more private to reach the voters instead of doing it in public.