Office of Former President and Gov. DemPGH

[DemPGH]

Excellent work!

We're "Team Pacific"! Would make a nice corporate logo anyway.

After the tax deal, then, hopefully we'll be off and running. If I'm Gov. till April and Devin's on the council, there is some reason to be optimistic.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Excellent work!

We're "Team Pacific"! Would make a nice corporate logo anyway.

After the tax deal, then, hopefully we'll be off and running. If I'm Gov. till April and Devin's on the council, there is some reason to be optimistic.

I have all the faith in the world in the both of you. Nice work. Let the progress continue!

[DemPGH]

A brief update:

Plebiscite Removal Clause is passing currently 5-2.

The 4th Pacific Const. is currently passing 8-0. Excellent!

I will not run for the council as I want to focus on finishing PJ's term. As I have it, Council candidates include:

1) Siren
2) Devin
3) Flo

Am I missing anyone?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

A brief update:

Plebiscite Removal Clause is passing currently 5-2.

The 4th Pacific Const. is currently passing 8-0. Excellent!

I will not run for the council as I want to focus on finishing PJ's term. As I have it, Council candidates include:

1) Siren
2) Devin
3) Flo

Am I missing anyone?

Xahar is running or did he drop out?

[Flake]

A brief update:

Plebiscite Removal Clause is passing currently 5-2.

The 4th Pacific Const. is currently passing 8-0. Excellent!

I will not run for the council as I want to focus on finishing PJ's term. As I have it, Council candidates include:

1) Siren
2) Devin
3) Flo

Am I missing anyone?

Xahar is running or did he drop out?

He dropped out.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

A brief update:

Plebiscite Removal Clause is passing currently 5-2.

The 4th Pacific Const. is currently passing 8-0. Excellent!

I will not run for the council as I want to focus on finishing PJ's term. As I have it, Council candidates include:

1) Siren
2) Devin
3) Flo

Am I missing anyone?

Xahar is running or did he drop out?

He dropped out.

Looks like we are the next council then .

[DemPGH]

Yeah, I PMed Xahar - I don't think he wants on the ballot. He indicated that he would run for re-election a while back and then formally resigned from the Council a few days ago, clearly indicating that he would not have the time in the 8th Pac. Council thread.

In any event, the first glitch in the new Constitution is now apparent. Ah, there's an old saying about too many cooks in the kitchen. But it's okay, it's one that we can be quite lenient about.

II.1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Later in II.1:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DemPGH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dear People:

I've decided this past week to cast aside my mostly non-interventionist stance and state that we need someone in Government, be it the Senate or the Presidency, who prioritizes the interests of the middle and lower classes. We need to ensure that there is at least one voice which does this. That's why I've decided to support TNF and Labor in this election, and if you are on the fence, I urge you to do likewise. I don't think there is anyone in the game who has been more active and more prolific than TNF, and so I've simply arrived at the position that that is what we need most of all.

I've more or less had my fill of the game this past year - I'm due for a vacation sooner rather than later , so that I can sit back and contentedly support someone like I described gives me comfort at this point.

Personally, I came from a union household, and that fact enabled me to get an education and become the person I am - which is probably what I am most thankful for.

Finally, Atlasia has a history of smart Progressivism. I would like to continue that tradition. I really believe that if we become too bland and too moderate we'll lose something of our identity.

So these are some reasons I have decided to rejoin and support Labor! I hope you will too.

X Pac. Gov. DemPGH

[TNF]

I thank you for your kind words of support, Governor.

[DemPGH]

Windjammer and I are finishing the basic blueprint for a merger. Because the MW is not paralyzed nearly as badly as the Pacific (we don't really even debate anything when we have a full council - we're thinking of ways to spend government dough right now), it involves a 3+3+1 composition. That is, three Pacific, three MW, and an at large Speaker. We'll determine if we can physically support that in the Pacific, and of course it will depend upon the council.

It's only gotten worse. If it becomes too difficult to fill three seats, I would consider a temporary - stress temporary so as to keep it constitutional - shutdown of the Pacific legislature.   

I'm also very sorry to report this:

I'm sorry for the inactivity everyone.  I officially resign my seat so someone that actually wants it can pitch in.  This game just isn't fun for me anymore, tbh, and I've been obnoxiously busy.  Love y'all. 

So in Siren's place I nominate TheCranberry, who has already contacted me about the opening and who I have every reason to believe will be a great new addition to the council!

[Хahar 🤔]

There's no way seven is possible. Do you want actual elections or to give a seat to every Tom, Dick and Harry who walks in?

[Napoleon]

There's no way seven is possible. Do you want actual elections or to give a seat to every Tom, Dick and Harry who walks in?

I don't see how any more than five could actually function.

[DemPGH]

There's no way seven is possible. Do you want actual elections or to give a seat to every Tom, Dick and Harry who walks in?

As I said, we might not be able to physically support it. We have a three-seat council now and can't really fill it. A 1+1+3 or a 2+2+1 composition would probably be better for us, but we'll see what we can pass.

[Napoleon]

There's no way seven is possible. Do you want actual elections or to give a seat to every Tom, Dick and Harry who walks in?

As I said, we might not be able to physically support it. We have a three-seat council now and can't really fill it. A 1+1+3 or a 2+2+1 composition would probably be better for us, but we'll see what we can pass.

Both of those ideas sound much better. Both are interesting enough that I would have a hard time deciding on a preference if I were still in the Pacific. Probably 1-1-3?

[windjammer]

As probably Governor elected from the Midwest, I will NEVER support 1+1+3. The speaker must be elected at large, I can compromise for the number of seats, but never for that.

[Napoleon]

As probably Governor elected from the Midwest, I will NEVER support 1+1+3. The speaker must be elected at large, I can compromise for the number of seats, but never for that.

Why can't the speaker be elected by the assembly/council like is normally done?

[DemPGH]

As probably Governor elected from the Midwest, I will NEVER support 1+1+3. The speaker must be elected at large, I can compromise for the number of seats, but never for that.

How's 2+2+1? If you think that would work I'll get back to you with a tweak of the proposal. 

[Oakvale]

1+1+3 seems to make the most sense in sheer sustainability terms, no?

[TNF]

I'm not sure electing the speaker at-large is a good idea from a political standpoint. Should not the Speaker be the leader of the party with the most seats in the legislature? I feel like that would work the best in this instance, although what the Governors eventually work out I will certainly support.

In terms of seats in the legislature, I believe that three seats for the MW and three seats for the Pacific would be ideal, but that we shouldn't really attempt to legislate where those seats are at. As in, once the merger is complete, people should be able to register in either former region and run for the combined legislature, without regard to region. The majority party would then elect a Speaker and you could have ties broken by a Lt. Governor. I would pay special attention to the voting system, as well. Perhaps the new region should experiment with that to some extent and implement party-list PR. That would be a welcome and challenging modification to the staid STV method we see literally everywhere else in this game.

[windjammer]

I have the feeling that I haven't been understood.

I will try to explain

Why 3-3-1 or 2-2-1?
When I say: "speaker elected at large", it's more like the Vice president, or the Archduke of the Althing who is the Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor couldn't vote, but could just break the tie.
He will be definitely the most important elected officer (and not the most powerful). Why?
-He would be an acting governor if the Governor is absent or vacant.
-He would make the rules of the house, would preside the sessions.
-He would present the bills passed to the governor.
The Lieutenant Governor would be extremely important, more important than the Governor  and his only power would be to break the ties.
The Lieutenant Governor will of course be the likely next governor, and the fact he's de facto the facto "speaker" will help him to know the concerns, the bills actually debated!
An another thing, the Chamber would elect a President pro Tempore too, who shall act as Lieutenant governor when the Lieutenant Governor is absent/vacant/acts as Governor.
A person couldn't be both a member of the house and the governor, and this can be the case in your typical 5 seats elected when the governor is absent.
And an another thing, don't forget the Midwest and the Pacific would stay officially two regions. This would be more a confederation, and I like the idea of an equal number of representatives for the two parts, with a Lieutenant Governor elected at large breaking the ties.


Why 6 seats instead or 4 seats?
As the longest serving elected officer from the Midwest, I can assure than more representatives we have, more active is the House.
For example, GAworth, who was the most active member of the Althing, would have probably lost his seat because the Labor Party and the Fed party would have voted for his candidates.
See Sjoyce's defeat too, an active member but not a federalist= goodbye. (it's not an attack to the federalist party, the Labor party would have done the same thing).
In the Midwest, we have a lot of candidates, and if there is a problem in the Pacific, just allow them to seek a seat in the Pacific.
And the idea of 1-1-3 is AWFUL: yikes, this doesn't represent well the idea of a "confederation" and being elected in a region seat would be more difficult to be elected in an at large seat.


If you have concerns, feel free to ask, feel free to give us your mind.

[windjammer]

And I have forgotten.
The representatives would be elected for 2 months, but not at the same time: half of the Assembly would be up for reelection each month; this could be interesting.

[Oakvale]

I've generally been of the opinion for some time now that the less offices the better, since it increases competition, but you do raise an interesting point in that partisanship might lead to inactive offficeholders being elected regardless. It's tricky.

[windjammer]

I've generally been of the opinion for some time now that the less offices the better, since it increases competition, but you do raise an interesting point in that partisanship might lead to inactive offficeholders being elected regardless. It's tricky.

Well, and if there is a problem, the number of seats can always be lowered. But I'm confident there won't a problem like that. The problem was that the Pacific had 5 representatives for 25 members. 3 seats were more appropriate. But with the confederation, we would have 56 seats, so I don't think there would be a problem if we let people from the Pacific run in the Midwest and vice versa.

And what do you think about the first part of my last post oakvale please? It interests me to have your opinion.

[Oakvale]

I've generally been of the opinion for some time now that the less offices the better, since it increases competition, but you do raise an interesting point in that partisanship might lead to inactive offficeholders being elected regardless. It's tricky.

Well, and if there is a problem, the number of seats can always be lowered. But I'm confident there won't a problem like that. The problem was that the Pacific had 5 representatives for 25 members. 3 seats were more appropriate. But with the confederation, we would have 56 seats, so I don't think there would be a problem if we let people from the Pacific run in the Midwest and vice versa.

And what do you think about the first part of my last post oakvale please? It interests me to have your opinion.

I haven't got any particular problem with the staggered elections. It works for the Senate after all.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'll reiterate the points I made:

Seven is too large for me; we need to have competitive elections for the game to be fun, and there's no way the population of these two regions is enough for that. I'd be fine with a 1-3-1 compromise arrangement, but we need to figure out how that would work logistically. I see three potential options:

• Elections for all seats are held at the same time, but regional seats are elected separately from at-large seats. In other words, candidates would have to choose whether to run for the regional seat or an at-large seat. The problem with this is that it might make elections less competitive; since there would only be one available regional seat for each candidate as opposed to three at-large seats, I suspect that candidates would flock to the at-large seats and leave the regional seats without competitive races.
• One election is held for all five seats, with a requirement that at least one winning candidate come from each region. This solution would be simple, although it would require a unique implementation of STV; the way it might work would be that if four candidates from the same region were elected, all other candidates from that region would be eliminated and their votes distributed. In practice this would probably almost never come into effect.
• Elections are staggered, with the three at-large seats being elected in even-numbered months and the two regional seats in odd-numbered months (or vice versa). The biggest issue here would be turnout; for odd-numbered elections not coinciding with any federal election, it might be rather low.

I think I like the second option best. What do the rest of you think?