Registration Reform Amendment [did not pass]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Tmthforu94

This goes in slot six as Forum Affairs legislation.

[tmthforu94]

This was introduced for Winston...

Personally, I'm not a big fan of removing state registration. Though this may be a lame reason, I really like the maps.

[Hans-im-Glück]

I think that's a good proposal.

I like the state registration, but there should be no consequences when you move from one state into another inside a region.

[k-onmmunist]

I want to see what the support is for abolishing state registration before I accept any amendments

[Bacon King]

I'd like to keep state registration, but I like the idea of making intra-regional moves "free."

[tmthforu94]

I'd like to keep state registration, but I like the idea of making intra-regional moves "free."

I echo Bacon King's sentiments. The main reason there is such a long waiting period is because people would move from region to region to vote in their "competitive elections". However, it doesn't really matter what state you are in within a region, so allowing players to move freely within their region would have no negative effect on the game.

[bgwah]

I'd like to keep state registration, but I like the idea of making intra-regional moves "free."

I see no reason to burden the SoFA with keeping track of those who would be constantly changing their state of registration.

[tmthforu94]

I'd like to keep state registration, but I like the idea of making intra-regional moves "free."

I see no reason to burden the SoFA with keeping track of those who would be constantly changing their state of registration.

Could we implement a maximum amount of times you can change per month?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Most people don't move around every three days, with the exception of people like Sewersocialist. I don't want to call him out on the senate floor, but he's probably one of the reasons this kind of crap was enacted. I am totally against abolishing states. I think it's nice to be able to register in a particular state rather than just a region.

[Franzl]

The Department of Forum Affairs supports this legislation. State registration is unnecessary at this point...and 90 days also appear sufficient.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The Department of Forum Affairs supports this legislation. State registration is unnecessary at this point...and 90 days also appear sufficient.

     My concern, though, that I raised before, would be what exactly would stop strategic registration from re-emerging were this to pass? Just hope that nobody is interested in moving voters en masse anymore?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I don't think the current system has done much to stop strategic registration anyway (see the Populares stacking of the NE), but I'd hate to see states go. 90 days is sufficent and one should be free to move within their own region any time they like. I do wish more of us had respect for our esteemed SoFA though.

[bgwah]

What would happen if we hypothetically decided to bring back districts? Requiring everyone to re-register with states would be difficult.

Additionally, there are instances where we need to know who is registered in what state regardless. For example, when a state changes regions, the consent of that's state is required. How would we know who lived there with no state registration?

Strategic registration still is and always be a problem. Nevertheless, time limits between moving serve as a very useful tool and I am 100% opposed to reducing the limit from 180 to 90 days. That is more than enough time to be able to move between regions specifically to influence regional elections. Regional senate seats are up every ~120 days, for example.

[Purple State]

The Department of Forum Affairs supports this legislation. State registration is unnecessary at this point...and 90 days also appear sufficient.

     My concern, though, that I raised before, would be what exactly would stop strategic registration from re-emerging were this to pass? Just hope that nobody is interested in moving voters en masse anymore?

I agree with this sentiment. While parties have always been able to stack an individual region, strategic registration proved an issue when one party repeatedly stacked multiple regions in succession. The strategic registration amendment put an end to that and is likely a driving factor behind the slow in state changes.

Do not so quickly forget the lessons of the past.

[Badger]

The Department of Forum Affairs supports this legislation. State registration is unnecessary at this point...and 90 days also appear sufficient.

     My concern, though, that I raised before, would be what exactly would stop strategic registration from re-emerging were this to pass? Just hope that nobody is interested in moving voters en masse anymore?

This is my only concern about this proposal as well. As Bgwah noted, with regional senate seats up every 120 days a 90 day limit leaves the door open to strategic registration mischief.

While Duke's right that party's can still decide to concentrate in one region to create a power base--nothing can really stop that, nor am I sure it's a huge problem--it does prevent short term strategic registration in other regions to sway a particular election. Using Duke's example CAVEAT: not an attack on the Populares here; lord knows they're not the first or last party to concentrate in one region and I'm just keeping with Duke's scenario the Pops largely registered en masse in the NE to make it their base. Fine and good. The difference under this law is they (or any other party) can't send a bunch of voters to another region a few months ahead of a regional seat (or other) election to sway that single result, only to have those voters return to the NE right after the election. (Again, same applies for the JCP in the Pacific or RPP in the SE).

Basically if a party chooses a particular region as their homeland, the 180 day registration limit keeps them from jumping in en masse to effect another region's election then immediately jumping back. The 90 day limit seems to make it more difficult to organize effecting another region's election 91-120 days out, but still entirely doable. For that reason I'm not sure I see the need to reduce the current 180 day limit to 90.

A 120 or 121 day limit maybe?

[Bacon King]

I offer an amendment, as friendly, to replace "90" with "120".

[k-onmmunist]

I am willing to accept such an amendment. What does everyone else think?

[Badger]

I am willing to accept such an amendment. What does everyone else think?

Good idea.

[bgwah]

It still isn't enough time. Try 150...

[tmthforu94]

I'm fine with the amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It still isn't enough time. Try 150...

     I worked out once that the maximum amount of time that can elapse between the beginning of two Class A elections is 130 days. Perhaps 130 would do?

[k-onmmunist]

It still isn't enough time. Try 150...

No. There would be no point in reducing it by 30 days.

[Badger]

It still isn't enough time. Try 150...

     I worked out once that the maximum amount of time that can elapse between the beginning of two Class A elections is 130 days. Perhaps 130 would do?

This sounds better.

Not to nitpick, but would 131 be necessary?

[Fritz]

I oppose this.  180 days is short enough.  Plant yourself somewhere you plan to stay a while.

[Bacon King]

Does anyone want to officially change the number? Winston, did you accept my friendly amendment or not? This bill will be at final vote soon.