SENATE BILL: Equal Representation Amendment (Tabled)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: ilikeverin

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

ILV has 24 hours to advocate for this Amendment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Districts, in my opinion, would not benefit the game and potentially lead to partisan gerrymanders.  I will oppose this bill.

[CatoMinor]

*Shouts from the visitor's section *

KILL THE BILL!!!!!!!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yeah, this bill needs to die.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yup... no.

[ilikeverin]

Districts, in my opinion, would not benefit the game and potentially lead to partisan gerrymanders.  I will oppose this bill.

Of course they might.  That was half the fun of them. (Am I pretty much the only currently active forumnite who actually participated in redistricting?  I think I might be the only Senator.  Oh dear )  How is the current regional setup any less of a "gerrymander"?  Just because it looks pretty doesn't mean it, say, doesn't pack a lot of Liberals into one region.  Furthermore, if we so desired, we could craft legislation that would attempt to cut down on gerrymandering.

As I stated in the title of this amendment, this is about one thing: fairness.  In fact, Senator Scott, coming from the great Northeastern Region, I would think you would care the most about this idea.  You represent 43 Atlasians in the Senate.  I represent just 22.  Why is it fair that the voice of Midwesterners is heard proportionately more than the voice of Northeasterners?  We are a wonderful people, graced by Dave by the most delightful of regional cultures.  But does that give us the right to dictate more of Atlasian policy than the region that has all the people?  No, it does not.  This amendment would fix that.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I'm glad to see consensus against tis bill...despite how much I genuinely like its sponsor! :-) Howver- I believe the fact that this bill would legalize gerrymandering- a political process that has gone rampant in the real world- is the biggest problem here...I think the current system is almost like having the Senate an dthe House- where larger and smaller regions have the same number of reps- and these are insulated from a national sweep

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Districts, in my opinion, would not benefit the game and potentially lead to partisan gerrymanders.  I will oppose this bill.

Of course they might.  That was half the fun of them. (Am I pretty much the only currently active forumnite who actually participated in redistricting?  I think I might be the only Senator.  Oh dear )  How is the current regional setup any less of a "gerrymander"?  Just because it looks pretty doesn't mean it, say, doesn't pack a lot of Liberals into one region.  Furthermore, if we so desired, we could craft legislation that would attempt to cut down on gerrymandering.

As I stated in the title of this amendment, this is about one thing: fairness.  In fact, Senator Scott, coming from the great Northeastern Region, I would think you would care the most about this idea.  You represent 43 Atlasians in the Senate.  I represent just 22.  Why is it fair that the voice of Midwesterners is heard proportionately more than the voice of Northeasterners?  We are a wonderful people, graced by Dave by the most delightful of regional cultures.  But does that give us the right to dictate more of Atlasian policy than the region that has all the people?  No, it does not.  This amendment would fix that.

Gerrymandering isn't fun- it's a despicable thing to do and makes a mockery out of the democratic system.  The current regional setup is fine the way it is because citizens may simply leave the region if it doesn't suit them.  Changing the makeup of the districts every few months would only jeopardize this process and make it easier for parties to take advantage of it.  We have enough people in this game who feud with each other on a routine basis; if we pass this amendment, then members of regional governments will have the opportunity to draw out people they just don't like.  I also have my doubts that anti-gerrymandering legislation would have much of an effect or even be enforceable in certain areas of the country.

Now, I don't know how many times I have to say this:
The Northeast Region does not need to be changed.

The Northeast is politically diverse, has an ideal population, and is inhabited by active citizens.  There is no need to divide us, and I fully intend to keep my campaign promise of not supporting anything that alters our region's borders.

[ilikeverin]

The current regional setup is fine the way it is because citizens may simply leave the region if it doesn't suit them.  ...
Now, I don't know how many times I have to say this:
The Northeast Region does not need to be changed.

The Northeast is politically diverse, has an ideal population, and is inhabited by active citizens.  There is no need to divide us, and I fully intend to keep my campaign promise of not supporting anything that alters our region's borders.

This amendment has nothing to do with the boundaries of the Regions

...and I'm not sure why you kept saying this repeatedly.  Districts would not supersede Regions in any way, shape, or form.  This has to do with Senatorial representation, nothing more.

I'm glad to see consensus against tis bill...despite how much I genuinely like its sponsor! :-)

*hughughug*

As to the esteemed Senators' objections about gerrymandering, I would like to ask them to please find examples of partisan gerrymandering during the redistricting process.  In fact, as someone who helped lead the charge to abolish districts in the first place, I can tell you with some certainty that gerrymandering was not a primary reason for the abolition of districts at all - in fact, the Senators objecting to the idea that districts wouldn't resemble Regional boundaries might be interested to know that one of the primary objections I gave to districts was that they almost exactly matched regional boundaries every single redistricting

[tmthforu94]

Now, just to clarify - This bill would do nothing to the regions, only change up the boundaries for Senate elections?

To me, I think this would be slightly confusing. Then again, I didn't join on here until a bit after districts were abolished. I am willing to listen on this, though. ilikeverin, could you share if there was ever any confusion when it came to voting time? Also, what led to districts being abolished the first time? If we could fix whatever problem we had then, this is worth looking in to.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The current regional setup is fine the way it is because citizens may simply leave the region if it doesn't suit them.  ...
Now, I don't know how many times I have to say this:
The Northeast Region does not need to be changed.

The Northeast is politically diverse, has an ideal population, and is inhabited by active citizens.  There is no need to divide us, and I fully intend to keep my campaign promise of not supporting anything that alters our region's borders.

This amendment has nothing to do with the boundaries of the Regions

...and I'm not sure why you kept saying this repeatedly.  Districts would not supersede Regions in any way, shape, or form.  This has to do with Senatorial representation, nothing more.

Essentially, this amendment does change the boundaries of the regions because it splits how the citizens are represented.  Senators are accustomed to representing their entire regions, not select portions of it.  By mandating that a region divides itself for representation purposes, we would be infringing on regions' rights.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

[AndrewTX]

I'm not a fan of messing with those regional seats at all. If anything, I'd rather change the at-large seats back to district seats. I always felt this was the best way to go with representation.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

*Shouts from the visitor's section *

KILL THE BILL!!!!!!!

[Pingvin]

*Shouts from the visitor's section *

KILL THE BILL!!!!!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Districts, in my opinion, would not benefit the game and potentially lead to partisan gerrymanders.  I will oppose this bill.

Of course they might.  That was half the fun of them. (Am I pretty much the only currently active forumnite who actually participated in redistricting?  I think I might be the only Senator.  Oh dear )  How is the current regional setup any less of a "gerrymander"?  Just because it looks pretty doesn't mean it, say, doesn't pack a lot of Liberals into one region.  Furthermore, if we so desired, we could craft legislation that would attempt to cut down on gerrymandering.

As I stated in the title of this amendment, this is about one thing: fairness.  In fact, Senator Scott, coming from the great Northeastern Region, I would think you would care the most about this idea.  You represent 43 Atlasians in the Senate.  I represent just 22.  Why is it fair that the voice of Midwesterners is heard proportionately more than the voice of Northeasterners?  We are a wonderful people, graced by Dave by the most delightful of regional cultures.  But does that give us the right to dictate more of Atlasian policy than the region that has all the people?  No, it does not.  This amendment would fix that.

The NE has 32% of the population and precisely 30% of the Senate is composed of Northeasterners. In fact, the Pacific and the Midwest are the most off from their population composition. It is hard to say that there is a group that is heavilly underepresented, especially considering we only have 10 Senators.  In fact, if you guys and the Pacific agread to say, split Seatown in half and take half a seat, then it would be within 2 or 3% in all regions.


ME 24/136 18%    20% of the Senate
benconstine (Ben) Mideast VA ind 0 xx-xxx-xx
TJ in Cleve Mideast OH Whig 0 xx-xxx-xx

MW 22/136 16%    10% of the Senate     
ilikeverin Midwest MN other 1 xx-xxx-xx

NE 43/136 32%    30% of the Senate
AndrewPA Northeast PA ind 0 xx-xxx-xx
Scott Northeast CT Lib 0 xx-xxx-xx
wormyguy Northeast MA other 0 xx-xxx-xx

Pacific 21/136 15%  20% of the Senate
sbane Pacific CA Lib 0 xx-xxx-xx
Seatown Pacific WA Labor 0 13-Jul-12

IDS  26/136 19%   20% of the Senate
Clarence South FL Whig 0 16-May-12
North Carolina Yankee South NC IB 0 xx-xxx-xx

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In fact, with At-Large seats (like your Midwest bro Jas tried to use the last time to uphend regional seats) and maybe even with this districting idea, the ones most adversely effected could be the Midwest because of their low population and low activity levels, which could leave them without any Senators. Yet these ideas always seem to be sponsored by Midwesterners. Sacrifice is so noble.

[LastVoter]

Light this on fire.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

*Shouts from the visitor's section *

KILL THE BILL!!!!!!!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I move to Table this legislation.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

*Shouts from the visitor's section *

KILL THE BILL!!!!!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am almost certain that OSPR page is out of date and this requires a second now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=146927.0


Yes, we need a second.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'll second the motion to table.