SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Gov't Oversight and Reform (Game Reform/PC)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll wait for you next post on the matter, but the primary focus is regional consolidation at present, with the Senate included because there is a direct effect there.

And abolishing Regional Senates seats is not possible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We tried it when I introduced a proposal by Antonio in late 2011 or early 2012. It died in the Senate if memory serves me. That was the closest that I can think of.

[Хahar 🤔]

Abolishing regional Senate seats is not possible only because obstructionists make it so.

[MaxQue]

Abolishing regional Senate seats is not possible only because obstructionists make it so.

We are aware, but, as we want reforms to be successful, it's not wise to propose reforms that will never pass.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abolishing regional Senate seats is not possible only because obstructionists make it so.

I think if someone sees an idea as destructive he has an obligation to challenge it. Oh but maybe we should pursue a controversial course blindly and then you wont' even get the activity from the debate of said topic. Once abolished, what happens? The activity levels will be the same or lower, except numerous conservatives will see it as the indication of what they have feared for years and leave. And then when you have replicated the Pacific's registration distribution nationwide, perhaps then you will take the same approach to the country as a whole as you guys did the Pacific. I am not playing this game to destroy it.

Are At-Large seats really that competative? Haven't seen Hagrid going anywhere, have you? What about Nappy? Oh you say well he has only been here for a few months, well why is that? It wouldn't be because his predecessor left because of inactivity would it? Hasn't been in danger pretty much since then. As I recall at least three of the seats were a forgone conclusion at least for the party if not for the exact person (Does randomizing the names really make that much of a difference if the party is the same? If it was Alfred instead of Maxy for instance. Randomization /= competativeness) and as many as four have been so in the past (not much different from past elections and at points worst then regional numbers. The names keep changing mostly because of incompetence not competitiveness. This was supposed to be "fixed" by dissolution as I recall. The only thing that has changed is the number of Senators resigning in disgrace amongst the At-Large seats has increased. BK, Barnes, Spamage, Franzl, and X versus Oakvale over the same period. I remember February, I remember AIMing Duke and the worry he had over all three TPP Senators potentially losing, as the polling indicated all were competative and that Ben was DOA. Sadly Nix, you just overperformed. Is it the Regional Seat's fault your just too damn good? I myself had my toughest race since October 2009 against a strong opponent.

Maybe Scott/Nix/Scott and myself skew the competence level in favor of Regional Seats and the competativeness against them ironically. I've won when my party was smaller then my opponent's party. I have almost invariable won a diverse coalition of support, including my current opponent in previous elections. It should be an argument in favor of Regional Seats, especially when the alternative has seen good people get sacked in favor inactive incompetents simply because they had the nationwide machine. I can think of one situation where a Regional Senator got defeated for reelection over that period and that was in the Pacific last October when sbane lost to Oakvale and if my memory serves me sbane's activity had dropped just prior to the election, which could be said to justify the results. It was the same thing back in late 2010 when Eraserhead defeated Dallasfan in the Northeast, Dallasfan's activity dropped before the election. Was X's reelection at the expense of Matt, justifiable on such grounds? He didn't even last half of his new term. How about that time that BRTD won a seat? How About Mint? How about Libertas? How about Wormyguy? We had two complete disasters for Regional Senators that I recall. Of Regional Senators only MoPolitico got expelled (True Con may have been but I can't remember) and that was after months of competent service, including working with Nappy to reform the Healthcare system.

I think the case is solid on both competence and activity that going all At-Large isn't a wise idea and that both have drawbacks. Yet it keeps coming back over and over and over again. There must be one hell of an echo chamber bashing Regional Seats somewhere. Is it IRC? Damn it, I knew it!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The difference in turnover is miniscule compared to "my perspective" if you know what I mean. They all look rather lame from way up here. It is like being on Kami's Lookout. across the clouds, I see my shadow on fire...

Getting serious again-
Before you ask yes, we have tried to shift when each class' election occurs to make the Regional Elections occur in midterms as opposed to Presidential elections. It required a series of two month terms and a six month transition. It was part of one of those Empowering Regions in Elections Amendments, and the transition was my handy work. I think it also failed in the Senate, though it may have been rejected at ratification I can't remember exactly.

You know for an obstructionist, I seem to have been the author or part author of a lot of abortive reform attempts.   I would hazard guess that Xahar wasn't a supporter of the above mentioned Amendment.

The simple fact is that I don't have prove that Regional Seats are better (since I am not advocating for all 10 being Regional Seats like some in the RPP used to do and I opposed), just that no alternative is superior enough to justify junking the balance between regional and popular interests. Especially if we redraw the boundaries and get a more competative complextion in the remaining regions. I will look any reform that doesn't impinge the balance. I recall voting for Nappy's amendment just a few months ago that failed at ratification (Whose the Reform Obstructionist again? and before you bring up the ratification vote, I typically do decline to vote in them on principle and it wouldn't have mattered anyway) and that was skirting the edge of impinging it.

How would FPTP work in an At-Large environment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would need to examine it some as well.

[Sec. of State Superique]

How would FPTP work in an At-Large environment?

Technically it's not actually FPTP, but something like this is what I have in mind. That's only a thought, though. I need to do more research before I actually make the case for that system or something else like it.

I would hate to see this happening :

"The usual result is that the largest single group wins every seat by electing a slate of candidates, resulting in a landslide."
This is the path to two-party systems!

May I suggest the PR Voting System that we have in Brazil? It is similar with a Party List.

[Napoleon]

Having served in each Senate class, I would say concretely that being a regional Senator is more fun- for the fact that you represent a distinct set of constituents that you are able to get to know and represent and advocate on their behalf. I would frequently contact citizens and the regional government to find ways I could help them as a Senator. From an elections standpoint, at-large seats are more fun. Being able to compete for every vote and having an open competition is fun, and you tend to see more competitive elections. In a regional race you usually get a one-on-one and the incumbent has a huge natural advantage.

It's easier to do your job as a regional Senator but the at-large seats are directionless and tend to attract the types that are personally popular and can bring the votes for their party. This is a flaw, but its countered with the fact that its extremely easy for an incumbent in a regional seat to build an impenetrable power base in their home region by doing a good job. Both classes will suffer drawbacks no matter what we do.

I think I'd be more open to merging the Senate and Cabinet, and holding elections every two months for all seats on a party list system. Basically a psuedo-parliamentary system. We could still find a way to incorporate the regions, but balance them with population. Reapportioning could take place every six months or so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Having served in each Senate class, I would say concretely that being a regional Senator is more fun- for the fact that you represent a distinct set of constituents that you are able to get to know and represent and advocate on their behalf. I would frequently contact citizens and the regional government to find ways I could help them as a Senator. From an elections standpoint, at-large seats are more fun. Being able to compete for every vote and having an open competition is fun, and you tend to see more competitive elections. In a regional race you usually get a one-on-one and the incumbent has a huge natural advantage.

It's easier to do your job as a regional Senator but the at-large seats are directionless and tend to attract the types that are personally popular and can bring the votes for their party. This is a flaw, but its countered with the fact that its extremely easy for an incumbent in a regional seat to build an impenetrable power base in their home region by doing a good job. Both classes will suffer drawbacks no matter what we do.

I think I'd be more open to merging the Senate and Cabinet, and holding elections every two months for all seats on a party list system. Basically a psuedo-parliamentary system. We could still find a way to incorporate the regions, but balance them with population. Reapportioning could take place every six months or so.

Okay how?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am selecting Nappy as my fill in chair this time for the following reasons:

1. The way I did it last time wasted time
2. Last time he deferred to X and look how that turned out.
3. He probably won't have to worry about me disappearing. Just saying


Okay considering the Pacific Crisis and the fact that if a group of people had contributed to a recession in real life, they would undoubtedly be called up to answer for it in front of Congressional Committees I think we should call some of those people up to testify before this committee. It will also provide the perfect launching pad for us to resume our discussion where we left off with how to reform the game overall.

So I figured we bring up three to five people, have them make some opening statements of about a reasonable length but still brief detailing the events as they undestood them, why it was done, what the intended impact was, and what the consequences have been. We give them say 48 hours for them to do this. It will be polite and civil, we will let them each speak their piece...THEN WE CARVE OUT THEIR LIVERS WITH A POTATO FORK! Ah just kidding (or am I? ). We then interrogate them and finish up with the committee members making some closing statements on the process, what was learned, reform ideas proposed, how to proceed etc etc. Then we will commence discussion on various reform ideas, starting first with any ideas that originated from the preceding inquisition. If the victims refuse to testify or get caught outright lying, then we put the "proper" mechanisms into effect.

Since there are only three of us, I guess the quickest way to do this would be to ask for a second on proceeding with the above strategy and discussion.

So any takers? If you have any preferred means of effecting the above more efficiently or whatnot, feel free to speak up.

[DemPGH]

The Council that shut down the Pacific would be a good place to start if what Yankee proposes happens, and also I am currently asking some questions about possible ties the NM-AM may have to armed citizens groups, factions, etc.

Yankee, no waterboarding, now. Or on second thought. . .

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I realize TNF is on vacation and thus some slowness is to be expected, but come on Nappy. Disgonbegood man.

[Napoleon]

I realize TNF is on vacation and thus some slowness is to be expected, but come on Nappy. Disgonbegood man.

Hey, you're the chair here. Haul them in if you please, I'll participate.

I also had an idea for our next topic. We ought to consider how to make committees more meaningful.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I realize TNF is on vacation and thus some slowness is to be expected, but come on Nappy. Disgonbegood man.

Hey, you're the chair here. Haul them in if you please, I'll participate.

I also had an idea for our next topic. We ought to consider how to make committees more meaningful.

I am one of three here and prefer to have the support of a majority of the members if possible, especially if it could get, "intense". 

I'll through that in with consolidation, which is already on the list and move it up accordingly. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The List
Pacific Council Members:
Xahar
Seatown
20RP12
Fuzzybigfoot

Spamage - Pacific Governor
Dereich - IDS Speaker
Hashemite - IDS Legislature and NM-AM member

A vote is now open on the question of bringing forth the above listed figures to provide testimony on the previously described issues relating to the Pacific. Members, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

I'll wait another hour and half to see if TNF votes, then it will be time to eat.

[TNF]

Nay.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

By a vote of two to one the Committee has voted to bring forth the vict...err.... witnesses to testify on the matter of the recent issues in the Pacific.


Time to send the PMs.

[Dereich]

Ok, I'll start.

I was not one of the people who planned the Pacific crisis; I didn't find out about it until the day after it had begun. My actions within the IDS legislature during the crisis were never planned or created by anyone other than myself. I acted only in what I considered the best interest of both the Pacific and the IDS by proposing that the Pacific be governed by the IDS until it was capable of self-governance. I also believe that we followed the spirit of the Imperial Dominion of the South through our attempt to bring order to a lawless region. While the Supreme Court and Senate dithered we took action! I do however regret that our actions did not help clear instability in the region as we had hoped; if any incident like this arises again (God forbid) then I think we have gained a valuable insight on how to act to provide relief to the troubled region.

I know some consider our actions to be furthering the causes of those who want to destroy the game; I consider it just the opposite. When I heard that there was an attempt to destroy the game with the Pacific I didn't run around like a chicken with my head cut off! I tried to utilize those changes through the existing system and found opportunities where they had arisen.

I am happy to respond to any questions the honorable senators may have.

[Spamage]

I had no indication "Operation Rimjob" was going to occur following the recall of the Pacific Council as well as NVGonzalez. With the President's Executive Order, I still had every belief that Xahar and the other NM-AM members truly wanted to do good in the Pacific. While I didn't necessarily agree with their beliefs I figured some activity was better than no activity. I left for my leave of absence and upon returning found the region in complete disarray. The Council had abolished the region following the passage of the Fourth Constitution. Not only was I disappointed, I viewed the actions as unconstitutional (which was later reaffirmed by the Supreme Court) therefore I returned to business as usual (opening voting booths primarily).

The IDS of course took action, which I disapproved of and believe contributed to the crisis which may be leading us to a recession but the blame certainly does not fall upon them alone.

I'll answer any questions y'all need me to.

[Хahar 🤔]

I am greatly enjoying the existence of this kangaroo court.

Atlasia has always gone through cycles of boom and bust in terms of participation and activity. At this point it is clear that Atlasia is at a low ebb in those terms. However, the last time Atlasia was at a peak, people took it upon themselves to create myriad extra offices (all regional offices, it should be noted), and now that the game has entered this rut, those positions are unfillable. The most obvious example was in the Pacific, which is why it was chosen for this operation (the seven officeholders in the region prior to the commencement of the operation were NVGonzalez, IBDD, Superique, solopop, wan, Marnetmar, and freefair, and of those only Superique and solopop were remotely active), but it has never been merely confined to that region: for an example, you need only look at the current elections in the Northeast, where there are four candidates for five positions. It goes without saying that this is a problem.

No matter what happens in the Pacific in the future, Operation Pacific Rimjob will have been successful, because it has clearly demonstrated the fundamental failings of the regional system in existence today. Nobody now would argue that the regional setup that exists now is healthy; while some of our opponents might wish to revert the regional situation to the status quo ante, doing that would do nothing to fix the fundamental problem of there being nowhere near the level of participation in the game that would be necessary to support the amount of regional government that presently exists. Reasonable people will recognize this now that it has been forcibly brought to their attention.

The response of some people will then be to say that the process of addressing the problem of the regions should have been done the normal way, through constitutional amendment. That is an admirable attitude, but it is entirely naïve. I have been a citizen of Atlasia for most of the game's history, and in that tie I have seen countless attempts at reform, including reform of the regions. These attempts invariably fail because Atlasia has a sizable population of reactionaries who will never agree to any change, no matter how distasteful the status quo might be. The last time that reform was a politically viable option was during the Wixted administration in 2007. It should come as no surprise that there have been no substantial changes to the governmental structure of Atlasia in the time since then.

I know that I have spent enough time futilely trying to attempt to bring about change to fix Atlasia within the context of the system, and I am sure that others feel the same way; this is why we plotters have opted instead to take direct action. There has been enough idle sloganeering on the part of those who wish to do something to fix the game; it is high time for propaganda of the deed, and that is what has happened here. Disagree with the actions in the Pacific if you will, but know that they were not aimless terrorism; the purpose of our endeavors has always been to improve the game.

[LastVoter]

Acknowledged

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Xahar this is not a Kangaroo Court, though I will say "We aim to please".


There about a day left for Hashy, Fuzzy and 20RP12 to respond.


Seatown, this is free bandwidth here man, don't let it go to waste.