MA: Amendment to Article III of the Mideast Constitution (Failed)

[HappyWarrior]

Amendment to Article III of the Mideast Constitution

Article III, Section I, Clause 2 of the Mideast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

The Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Mideast Region.

[ZuWo]

I oppose this amendment. But don't worry, since this is a constitutional amendment you don't have to fear my veto. Nevertheless, here's why I'm not in support of this amendment:

The current wording of the clause in questions provides flexibility. If there happen to be only a few candidates running for Assembly (i.e. fewer than six) it is very likely that we get competitive elections because the constitution states that in such a case the Assembly shall only be composed of three members. The June election serves as a brilliant example for this. On the other hand, if we have many candidates (i.e. six or more) the size of the Assembly automatically changes to five, which will probably be the case next month.
This "flexibility rule" which is in place at the moment has been passed by the people of the Mideast only very recently. Even if you're sceptical about I urge you to give it some time. It's too early to make a negative judgement. We had too many elections in the past that were so boring because we could hardly find five active candidates for the five seats in the Assembly.

In a nutshell, the flexibility which is guaranteed by the current wording of the clause in question leads to more competitiveness and excitement. We are likely to have elections that are more boring if we reinstate the old rule.

[Jayhawker]

Here is my "opening statement"

Thanks to ZuWo's efforts of recruiting new Whig members to the Mideast, we have quite a few active members. I believe, instead of letting those members become zombie voters for specific parties, like many of our newbies often become, we should find a way to easily integrate them into the game. If we have 5 great, active candidates, I don't think they should be punished and only 3 of them getting elected.

I would also argue that, while it may provide some flexibility, the current version has a loophole - say there are five candidates running, all great. Another person, who realizes that all 5 should be elected, could easily jump in the race to ensure the other 5 are all elected.

ZuWo himself stated yesterday to me that these amendments may take a while to pass, as both HW and Inks have been busy and RogueBeaver is just starting off. Imagine how much more active the Assembly would be if JCL had also gotten in the last election.

The argument has also been made that there will be uncompetitive elections if we set it back to 5, but I disagree. With my proposed Lt. Governor amendment, this will ensure that every election, regardless of the number of candidates, there will be some competition.

We must be willing to adapt, and with our new members, we need to find a way for them to learn the game and become involved. That's how I got my start, as well as many other's who have gone on to do great things. Newbies deserve a chance.

[ZuWo]

Newbies deserve a chance.

They will get a chance thanks to the current wording of the constitution. It is very probable that there are going to be at least six candidates running for Assembly next month so the new Assembly will have five members. As things stand today, this amendment isn't even necessary.

[Senator Napoleon]

I don't care too much but with three members the Governor is given way too much power and that is not acceptable.

[Jayhawker]

Newbies deserve a chance.

They will get a chance thanks to the current wording of the constitution. It is very probable that there are going to be at least six candidates running for Assembly next month so the new Assembly will have five members. As things stand today, this amendment isn't even necessary.

This amendment may not be necessary for July's election, but who's to say it won't be needed for September, November, or January?

Look back at recent elections, and you'll see a trend: Typically when there's an election that involves new members running, they finish towards the bottom.

Scenario: If we had 5 candidates, 3 "old-timers" and 2 "newbies", which 3 do you think would probably get elected?

[ZuWo]

Newbies deserve a chance.

They will get a chance thanks to the current wording of the constitution. It is very probable that there are going to be at least six candidates running for Assembly next month so the new Assembly will have five members. As things stand today, this amendment isn't even necessary.

Scenario: If we had 5 candidates, 3 "old-timers" and 2 "newbies", which 3 do you think would probably get elected?

The three candidates who are able to convince the majority of voters. Indeed, old timers have a certain advantage but that doesn't make it impossible for newbies to get elected if they run an active and smart campaign.

Now look at the Assembly election in May and the previous one: They have been extremely boring and predictable. We hardly got five people to run for a seat in the Assembly. There was no campaigning going on and turnout was very low. Even your Lt. Governor amendment, which I support in principle, can't prevent that from happening. As Senator TJ pointed out, "due to the quirky way Mideast Assembly elections are counted, the candidate with the most 1st preferences is often a weaker candidate an organized drive is trying to help out or a political outsider relying only on 1st preferences."
The fact that the candidate with the most 1st preferences can become Lt. Governor will not motivate more people to run for a seat in the Assembly. Nobody who isn't motivated to run for Assembly and shies away from doing legislative work will change his mind because he could become Lt. Governor.

[Jayhawker]

Maybe it needs re-worded, but I'm not sure where everyone is getting this idea that the candidate with the most first-preferences becomes Lt. Govenror. I agree - it shouldn't be that way. I said in that amendment, which we can discuss in the other thread, the candidate who finishes first. I didn't say first preferences.

It certainly could create competitive elections - if two candidates are vying for Lt. Governor, that could certainly boost turnout and keep things interesting. It guarentee's there will always be at least some suspense, as you won't be able to say for sure who the Lt. Governor will be until after the vote finishes.

Like I said, thanks to your recruiting efforts, we need to adapt. We didn't have all of these new citizens a couple months ago. Now we do, and we should adjust our government so that they will be able to have opportunities to get involved now and down the road.

[ZuWo]

I am not going to shed tears if this amendment passes the Assembly and the people. I just think it's unnecessary. Due to the population boost we have experienced in the recent weeks and months I think we will see many elections with so many candidates running that the Assembly will more or less permanently have five members. But in my opinion the idea of having a lot of competition in case we don't have too many candidates (e.g. 5 candidates who are fighting for only 3 seats) is very appealing. This is only possible with the current clause, and I think this kind of flexibility leads to more competitiveness and excitement.

That's all I want to say about the amendment at this point. I leave the decision to the honorable Assemblymembers and, if necessary, to the people.

[Jayhawker]

My biggest problem with the current version will hopefully never become a problem, but I just don't like the idea of good Assemblymembers being punished because not enough candidate run.

If we ever have an election with 5 candidates, and at least 4 of them deserved a spot, I would be very tempted to defeat the system and run just to ensure the rest get in. If we get to a point where we're only getting 2-3 candidates running (hopefully never), then maybe we can look at going back to 3.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I think the current system works fine.  There's no reason to push for more people to get elected.  If we have the candidates, we'll have 5 Assemblymen.

[Jayhawker]

I think the current system works fine.  There's no reason to push for more people to get elected.  If we have the candidates, we'll have 5 Assemblymen.

I think we must remember that a main purpose for the Assembly is to help integrate new members. When we make law deciding that it's practically impossible for everyone to get elected, we're hurting our newbies chances to get involved in the game, as due to less connections, new members generally end up near the bottom of elections.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I think the current system works fine.  There's no reason to push for more people to get elected.  If we have the candidates, we'll have 5 Assemblymen.

I think we must remember that a main purpose for the Assembly is to help integrate new members. When we make law deciding that it's practically impossible for everyone to get elected, we're hurting our newbies chances to get involved in the game, as due to less connections, new members generally end up near the bottom of elections.

And if newbies don't get involved?  Then we just have a 5-man assembly without active members.  That's no fun.

[Jayhawker]

I think the current system works fine.  There's no reason to push for more people to get elected.  If we have the candidates, we'll have 5 Assemblymen.

I think we must remember that a main purpose for the Assembly is to help integrate new members. When we make law deciding that it's practically impossible for everyone to get elected, we're hurting our newbies chances to get involved in the game, as due to less connections, new members generally end up near the bottom of elections.

And if newbies don't get involved?  Then we just have a 5-man assembly without active members.  That's no fun.

Well, I don't think we'll have to worry about that for a while, considering how this month is looking.

If it becomes an issue down the road, we adjust to the circumstances.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I think the current system works fine.  There's no reason to push for more people to get elected.  If we have the candidates, we'll have 5 Assemblymen.

I think we must remember that a main purpose for the Assembly is to help integrate new members. When we make law deciding that it's practically impossible for everyone to get elected, we're hurting our newbies chances to get involved in the game, as due to less connections, new members generally end up near the bottom of elections.

And if newbies don't get involved?  Then we just have a 5-man assembly without active members.  That's no fun.

Well, I don't think we'll have to worry about that for a while, considering how this month is looking.

If it becomes an issue down the road, we adjust to the circumstances.

So then this month we'll have 5 people  anyway - nothing to worry about.

[Jayhawker]

I think the current system works fine.  There's no reason to push for more people to get elected.  If we have the candidates, we'll have 5 Assemblymen.

I think we must remember that a main purpose for the Assembly is to help integrate new members. When we make law deciding that it's practically impossible for everyone to get elected, we're hurting our newbies chances to get involved in the game, as due to less connections, new members generally end up near the bottom of elections.

And if newbies don't get involved?  Then we just have a 5-man assembly without active members.  That's no fun.

Well, I don't think we'll have to worry about that for a while, considering how this month is looking.

If it becomes an issue down the road, we adjust to the circumstances.

So then this month we'll have 5 people  anyway - nothing to worry about.

Preparing for the future.

I guess this all comes down to whether you three believe the Assembly is an opportunity to have competitive elections in the game or if you think the primary purpose should be to promote newbie involvement in the region. I hope you all will consider at least letting the people make the final decision.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The people ALREADY made the decision.  We've switched back and forth how many times now?

[Jayhawker]

The people ALREADY made the decision.  We've switched back and forth how many times now?

However, this was before the recent influx in activity we've seen as a result of some new members and a couple new faces moving to the region.

[HappyWarrior]

I'm still trying to decide which system I'd prefer and I think I could therefore be considered a toss-up vote on this.  I see the wisdom in expanding the Assembly because I served when the five member assembly was active, however I have also seen how hard it is to generate competitive elections here in Atlasia.

[Jayhawker]

I'm still trying to decide which system I'd prefer and I think I could therefore be considered a toss-up vote on this.  I see the wisdom in expanding the Assembly because I served when the five member assembly was active, however I have also seen how hard it is to generate competitive elections here in Atlasia.

I understand your reasonings. I do think there is potential for uncompetitive elections either way. Also, look at this session - with all due respect, this session, our first in a while with only 3, hasn't been too active. Is possibly having a competitive election worth the potential of having a less active legislative session? I suppose that's up to you three to decide.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The people ALREADY made the decision.  We've switched back and forth how many times now?

However, this was before the recent influx in activity we've seen as a result of some new members and a couple new faces moving to the region.

But what happens if/when the new faces move on?  Do we reammend it back to 3 as needed?  The solution we have now gives us some flexibility.  I think a flexibile solution is best.  Right now we have enough declared candidates that we'll have 5 members, so the very problem you're worrying about has been solved by our current Assembly makeup formula.

[Jayhawker]

The people ALREADY made the decision.  We've switched back and forth how many times now?

However, this was before the recent influx in activity we've seen as a result of some new members and a couple new faces moving to the region.

But what happens if/when the new faces move on?  Do we reammend it back to 3 as needed?  The solution we have now gives us some flexibility.  I think a flexibile solution is best.  Right now we have enough declared candidates that we'll have 5 members, so the very problem you're worrying about has been solved by our current Assembly makeup formula.

I have a possible compromise I will introduce tommorw that may be more difficult to maintain, but could be a solution to both sides.

[ZuWo]

The people ALREADY made the decision.  We've switched back and forth how many times now?

However, this was before the recent influx in activity we've seen as a result of some new members and a couple new faces moving to the region.

But what happens if/when the new faces move on?  Do we reammend it back to 3 as needed?  The solution we have now gives us some flexibility.  I think a flexibile solution is best.  Right now we have enough declared candidates that we'll have 5 members, so the very problem you're worrying about has been solved by our current Assembly makeup formula.

I couldn't have said it in a more concise way. The current text of the constitution provides the best solution because it gives us the flexibility we need.

[ZuWo]

There hasn't been any debate on this bill for several days. Since this session of the Assembly is slowly coming to an end, I suggest you hold a final vote on the bill. There are still two bills waiting in the queue (Mideast Assembly Thread) that need to be debated.

[Jayhawker]

I urge the Assembly to at least give the people a chance to make the final decision on this important amendment.