SENATE BILL: Empowering Regions in Elections Amendment (Failed)

[Napoleon]

Get well soon Tmth.

[Ban my account ffs!]

all you've basically said, Marokai, is:

"Waah waah waaah.. I wanted to take my ball and go home but then the big meanie JCP boy brought two more boys to play in my place and they had their own ball!  Woe is me!"

The rest is just a bunch of hot air with the distinct aroma of bullsh**t.

[Napoleon]

all you've basically said is:

"Waah waah waaah.. I wanted to take my ball and go home but then the big meanie JCP boy brought two more boys to play in my place and they had their own ball!  Woe is me!"

The rest is just a bunch of hot air with the distinct aroma of bullsh**t.

Yes. Hyperpartisan JCPer Napoleon giving BRTD a third preference is destroying this game, not Marokai
 Blue's thuggish hostility.

[tmthforu94]

Get well soon Tmth.

Thank you.

Sorry for the interruption - I obviously posted that in the wrong thread.

Proceed. Or stop.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Ignoring the substance of what I say is a traditional JCP tactic. I'm glad to see it's still in use.

[Napoleon]

Ignoring the substance of what I say is a traditional JCP tactic. I'm glad to see it's still in use.

Or lack thereof?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes. I'm lacking in substance. Let's see how far that obviously untrue line will get you. Where are the JCP's wealth of game reform proposals, again?

[Napoleon]

Yes. I'm lacking in substance. Let's see how far that obviously untrue line will get you. Where are the JCP's wealth of game reform proposals, again?

I made proposals in this thread. I sponsored an amendment to reform the VP position that had support from the Game Reform Commission that couldn't pass because of your party's opposition. I have a host of OSPR amendments I'd like to introduce but before that I will see if they can be compiled with my upcoming OSPR amendment. The JCP and other reformers are hoping to amend the entire Northeast Constitution.

Your post lacks in substance considering the entire post was obviously untrue.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Snowguy, I thought clause 3 would have disallowed indirect elections under this amendment.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I thought the purpose of this bill was to increase participation in regional elections by allowing regions to control their own senatorial elections? Obviously, the information collected by Napoleon would show regional participation is lower, otherwise, what is the point of this bill?

I think the arguments in opposition make sense if we don't want to risk short-term deflation of regional senate participation, but I think in the long run, it may have been a good thing. As it stands, AL senators already face a different electorate than do regional senators. Perhaps this bill would further widen the gap, I don't know. In the short-term I concede it probably would. Long run, we will never know. Just my two cents, but I know no one really cares.

As Justin Timberlake would say, it's dead and gone. And as Jay Z would say, on to the next one...

[Marokai Backbeat]

I thought the purpose of this bill was to increase participation in regional elections by allowing regions to control their own senatorial elections? Obviously, the information collected by Napoleon would show regional participation is lower, otherwise, what is the point of this bill?

This is what I regret not having pointed out myself. I don't understand what point Napoleon hoped to get across with his weird 'research.' It proved nothing except that there is already a problem, which is partially what necessitated this Amendment in the first place. It's like he's trying to use the current situation as proof that a proposed solution that's never gone into effect before will be a failure. It makes no sense.

[Napoleon]

Senate turnout would go down. You would have to follow my proposal if you wished to achieve that goal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Senate turnout would go down. You would have to follow my proposal if you wished to achieve that goal.

This is guesswork. Your weird attempt at trying to prove something that doesn't exist yet wouldn't work is really silly. We can't say one way or another if it would reduce or increase turnout. My bet would be that people still would actually care about electing a Senator and would show up to vote.

The problem with your proposal is that it doesn't make sense. Trying to break up a national election into 5 different voting blocs for no other reason than you just want to is ridiculous.

And besides, not only that, but I would even say that, for the sake of argument, turnout in general would go down regardless. It would also be needlessly complicated, adding a layer of extra make-work that wouldn't be there otherwise just because you feel the need to continue tying the regional Senate elections and the Presidential elections together.

AND, would it kill you people to actually give it, I don't know, a try? We have nothing to lose here. If it turns out to be really bad for a couple of election cycles, you can turn right away and fix it later. We're not making life decisions we'll be stuck with for the rest of eternity. We're never going to make any changes if you guys are never willing to step outside your comfort zones.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And a round of applause for the JCP, ladies and gentlemen. (And a standing-O for Snowguy, please! The Senator that changed from Aye to Nay!)

The regional senate seat process is clearly broken.  I don't think this bill will make it better.  As it is right now, only one region is competitive (the Northeast).

Valid points are made regarding indirect election of regional senators in that Atlasians don't vote in regional elections.

It is wholly unfair to subject half the senate to a full referendum by all Atlasians while the other half can be rushed into office by a few super active players.

I honestly didn't think that would be an issue... I thought the regions would keep similar systems to what we have now... but I think the right wants to push for indirect elections, which will hurt the senate.

If we had two federal legislative bodies, it might be different... but to give half the senators the exact same powers and responsibilities as the other half while only making them accountable to a tiny sliver of the electorate is unfair.

I have not been shy about my support for getting rid of regional senate seats altogether and making them all AL.  While I'd like to give regions the benefit of the doubt, I don't want this to become a system where a few good old boys decide who gets to be senator in 4 out of 5 regional senate seats.

I do beleive that there was only 1 competative At-Large seat, also. As you, BRTD and Duke were sure wins, and HCL wasn't far below that level. Maybe if turnout had been higher it would have gone down to three uncompetative seats.

If it is unfair, it is unfair because of the inherent nature of At-Large elections and the voting method used. It creates uncerntainty in the mind of the voter as to what effect his vote will have and it leads to a situation where each senator is elected by 1/5th (or somewhat less) of the vote. But each At-Large Senator has a choice to make, he can cater to that one 1/5th or he can cater to everyone. We have seen that doing the harder (the latter) isn't actually the best way to get elected/re-elected in At-Large elections, as the results last time proved. In Regional elections ironically, the ones who have broad appeal to everyone, usually do better then the partisans.

The problem is, you need to maintain the balance of power between regions and the popular majority and at the same time have a small game to work with. So creating two houses is unfeasible. If I have my history right, they used Districts for the Senators who were to represent the popular will (And for Senates 2-7, Class A was districts as well). The alleged unfairness is gone with that. However, they became a mess, and so they went to electing "the class B 5" nationwide, by proportional vote. Yes it is funky to have two different classes of representatives in the same body, elected differently, but it works for its intended purpose of balancing the two above mentioned interests.

Of course, you are free to disagree as to whether maintaining that balance is a priority. However, as far as the competativeness issue, there is simply no differential between the two systems which renders one more worthy compared to the other one. They both have pros and cons, but it is always interesting to note that opponents of regional seats always ignore the positives of Regional seats and gloss over the negatives of At-Large seats, as if they have no drawbacks, to setup a false superiority of the at-large seats. An all At-Large Senate would be more partisan, and likely less competently active. In Regional Seante seats, there has been a tendency to be more bipartisan and more active. I guess for the sake of driving up the reelection margins or something. I do it because I feel obligated to do so. Whatever the reason it seems to work. Typically the ME has had some fairly good people untill HappyWarrior zone out and True Con seemed to not desire the seat he was appointed to. I am pretty sure, had events not intervened, the "elected" representative of the ME would have been active and engaged. The innactive NE Senators, were cycled out after one term, till now with Napoleon they have someone who cares about the job a lot. If something similar had occured in an At-Large seat, they probably would have won reelection, especially if supported by one of the large parties because usually they won't risk losing a seat and will sacrifice competence for partisan balance and by extention weak Senators have no incentive to retire cause they need only that small base to win. Even in a lopsided region, it is a taller order to get someone elected that has done a bad job, because there are enough people willing to defect and in some cases show interest in challenging for the seat that it is easier to defeat someone like that or incentivize them to retire. Atleast that is the case in the RPP dominated regions. It is amazing that even with, "the supposed competativeness of At-Large seats" the liklihood of a weak Seantor both running and winning is greater in them then in a majority of the Regional seats.


As far as the criticism of lack of fairness, you can choose as an at-large Senator who to cater to, and you have no obligation to cater to anyone else. Now when it comes to constituent services, you have a lot more people to potentially help, but the flip side is you have 5 other people competing to service that same guy, and so the demand is split up, thus requiring no excess labor on your part. I would think Regional Senators are first ones to get that kind of thing, unless it deals with a certain Senator's forte or whatever.  I frankly don't see the unfairness.

As for indirect election of Senators, no one suggested that in this thread that I can see, and though it has been discussed as a possibility before, I have never really considered it a reasonable option, other  than maybe "this could be interesting, we could jumpstart activity by creating a movement to overturn it", which usually get's a lot of "rather not". The idea of passing something just so that it can be removed seems to be too much for some. In terms of actual election methods and finding the best one, it is positively ludicrous.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Final vote on passage of the Empowering Regions in Elections Amendment:

Aye (3): AHDuke99, JBrase, and NC Yankee
Nay (5): bgwah, BRTD, Fuzzybigfoot, Napoleon, and Snowguy716
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Officepark


The Constituional Amendment, having not received 2/3rds of the Senate in the affirmative, has thus failed to pass.