Commission on Electoral Reform: Official Thread

[Bacon King]

This is the official thread for the proceedings of the Commission on Electoral Reform, as selected by the President. The Commission kindly requests that this thread be maintained for official discussion among its members. A public thread for the Commission and its work has been created on the Fantasy Elections board; all Atlasians are invited and encouraged to participate in that discussion.

The following is the executive order that officially organized this commission:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope for the three of us to reach a consensus among ourselves with a reform that:

• Has the approval of the general public
• Fixes existing shortcomings effectively
• Is substantial reform, and not merely a token effort
• Produces a final bill (or package of bills) for official proposal that can be realistically expected to pass the Senate and signed by the President.

Members of the Commission

rpryor03 (National Party - New Jersey): Deputy Attorney General -- CHAIRMAN
Bacon King (The People's Party - Oceania): Senator, At-large
bore (Labor Party - Rhode Island) Senator, Northeastern Region

[rpryor03]

As the member of the Executive Branch, I will chair.

[Bacon King]

As the member of the Executive Branch, I will chair.

Fine with me

[Bacon King]

I posted mini-bios of us at the bottom of the OP to show our official positions and to demonstrate the commission's diversity of opinion

[bore]

X Bore

[bore]

OK, I think the best way to proceed is to isolate the various discreet topics that we want to look at and then debate them one by one.

So, whats the best way to break them up?

[rpryor03]

I'd like to share this information shared by Adam Griffin, and I'll share the main point here: For the first time in several years, more Atlasians lack representation in the At-Large Senate class than are represented by members of their own party/group.

Our first question should be the easier one. Is the way that we elect our Senators good? Once we figure that out, we can go in depth on election reform, specifically election systems.

[bore]

I'd like to share this information shared by Adam Griffin, and I'll share the main point here: For the first time in several years, more Atlasians lack representation in the At-Large Senate class than are represented by members of their own party/group.

Our first question should be the easier one. Is the way that we elect our Senators good? Once we figure that out, we can go in depth on election reform, specifically election systems.

I personally don't think the representation issue is a problem as it's the voters deciding who gets elected and party id is far more nebulous in atlasia than in the US. The only time representation is an issue is when there are special elections, for instance when the centre right lumine was replaced by centre left BK, but there's nothing that can really be done about that.

I think the bigger problem is at large elections are boring and predictable, roughly the same proportions of left and right will get elected, and the 5th seat tends to come down not to who's running the best campaign but to who does the maths best. The only really exciting at large elections are specials when only one seat is up for grabs.

I think in atlasia it's become clear that races for one seat are the best, especially the higher up the food chain you go. Regional seats and the presidency are always more interesting than the at large elections or, say, the northeast assembly elections.

With that in mind I think we should go back to a district system with districts drawn by governors and if they didn't succeed the GM or something.  If we wanted to insure sufficient differentiation between district and regional seats (which is particularly important due to bottlenecks like new york) we could have 4 districts and an at large or rules determining how much of a region could be in any one district or something.

[Bacon King]

I agree with pretty much everything Bore said, and I like the idea of 4 districts with an at-large seat

[Talleyrand]

4 districts would be really boring. I suspect all that would come out of that would be the districts roughly corresponding to 3 or 4 of the regions with 1 or 2 being split apart.

I think these alternatives would be more interesting.

Plan I
3 Districts
2 At-Large Seats (but elected separately, sort of like the Oklahoma/South Carolina senate elections this year)

Plan II
2 Districts
3 At-Large Seats (elected with the current system, but making it more difficult to be elected)

[bore]

I think that a 3 seat proportional system would just end up always with a left winger a centrist and a right winger, but I don't mind separately elected at larges.

The bigger problem, as you say, is to avoid a district seat just being a regional seat by another name. With current census figures for a 3 district map each seat would need 55 voters, and for a 4 would need 41 ( The current figures being ME 48, NE 39, PA and IDS 26, MW, 27) for all maps apart from 2 there is a danger of one seat being a de facto regional seat.

So if we're doing districts, (which I think we should, for reasons given above) there would have to be some sort of clause that says that no more than, say, 60% of a districts electorate can be from a given region.

[rpryor03]

I could support that clause. If we're doing districts, who will district? Should we have an independent commission like this one?

[Bacon King]

I don't like the idea of two simultaneous At-Large Senate races that are elected separately- if they're at the same time it should be a single same race. I'm open to the idea of one At-Large seat elected alongside the regional Senators, though.

Redistricting could be done by a panel of representatives selected by each major party, perhaps?

[Bacon King]

^ excellent point

Also anyone want to talk about secret ballots or statute reboot

[bore]

Any move back to a district system would have to include the ratification of an amendment changing how often you could move between states to six months (One's already passed, so it would just be a matter of one or two more regions ratifying it). I also agree with Averroes about regional executives being the best way to do the panel.

In the public thread Poirot raised an interesting point that at large elections allow minor parties and view points to get into the senate, and I think there are two things that need to be looked at when thinking about this:

Firstly there is the perennial is it primarily an elections or a governmental sim. I'm inclined to think of it as an election sim (perhaps because elections can be objectively measured unlike, say, policy outcomes) which means they come first. And if they come first at larges are so boring that a slightly less homogeneous senate is a price worth paying.

Having said that I'm not even sure if the at larges make the senate more diverse. The regional seats have at the moment three centre leftists, a centre rightist and a communist, whereas the at larges have three centre leftists (counting cynic) a libertarian and a conservative. Deus and Maxwell have both come close to winning senate seats in separate regions, Cassius and DC have both won as well. There can and is real diversity in districts as well as at large.

Poirot also raises the point that at larges are less personal, but I think that just depends on the race. I've never been in a personal race for instance, despite almost always having run for single positions.

[Barnes]

I'm going to go ahead and bump this. I hope this doesn't just run out of steam, especially with such fine membership.

[rpryor03]

If everyone could take this survey, that would be appreciated.

http://goo.gl/forms/oH6wjx7Y76

[rpryor03]

A summary of the Survey Results:

Would You Like To See A Change in the Presidential Elections Process?
Yes: 14 (42%)
No: 13 (39%)
I Don't Care: 6 (18%)

How would you like to see the Presidential Election Process Performed?
Electoral College: 3 (9%)
Two-Round: 5 (15%)
Elected by Senate: 1 (3%)
Other Responses: 10 (30%)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would you like to see a change in the Senatorial elections process?
Yes: 24 (73%)
No: 2 (6%)
I Don't Care: 1 (3%)

How would you like to see the Senatorial process performed?
Districts: 9 (27%)
Regional and At-Large: 5 (15%)
Regional: 3 (9%)
At-Large: 2 (6%)
Other Responses: 14 (42%)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would you like to have a Constitutional Convention?
Yes: 16 (48%)
No: 16 (48%)

Is there anything else you would like to share with us?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another more specific survey will be out soon.

[rpryor03]

Survey is here:

http://goo.gl/forms/AGip41P2gT

[bore]

Interesting results.

The main thing I'm getting from that is that people overwhelmingly want a change in the senatorial elections but are far more divided on other issues, which, due to the way amendments pass in atlasia, means those things won't be able to be changed.

[rpryor03]

And from our second survey:

What Party are you a member of?
TPP: 36%
Federalist: 27%
Labor: 18%
Independent: 9%
Transcendental Democrats: 9%

How would you like to see the Presidential Election Process performed?
Current System: 64%
Two-Round System: 36%

Which of these systems would you like to be implemented for electing the Senate? (Please Select 2)
Regional: 91%
Districts: 82%
At-Large: 27%

Would you like to see a Full Reboot/Constitutional Convention?
Yes: 73%
No: 27%

Would you like a Bicameral legislature?
Yes: 55%
No: 45%

Would you like to vote in Federal Elections by Secret Ballot?
Yes: 73%
No: 27%

[rpryor03]

Finding the results, I'd like to propose this amendment to serve as our recommendation from the commission.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Thoughts, gents?

[bore]

I largely agree with this proposal, what I would say is we should maybe think about having the commission meeting more regularly, seeing as in the space  of 6 months everyone in atlasia could have moved to a different region.

The other thing that would be necessary is restricting the amount of times you can move states to every 6 months.

Other than that it looks good

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Not that anyone asked me, but I find the wording of the proposed amendment a little confusing. What exactly is meant by "elected by the regions" (the change proposed in Section 1)?
My apologies for butting in.

[rpryor03]

I've edited it with your suggestion, Bore, and changed the mistake pointed out by you, HST.