Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[bore]

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]

Sponsor: Bore, for the Electoral Reform Commission

[Senator Cris]

I like this.

[Adam Griffin]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

[TNF]

This is awful, and I will not vote for it under any circumstances.

[Senator Cris]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

This is awful, and I will not vote for it under any circumstances.

Why?

[TNF]

Districts for the Senate is an utterly moronic idea that places more power in the hands of the tragically inept Regional administrations, which I, as someone who opposes the very existence of the Regions themselves, strenuously oppose.

[Cranberry]

I'd like to hear the members of this committee advocating for this reform, and then forge my opinion which is of now not present.

[windjammer]

Well,
I like the idea of "senate districts", the current at large system needs to be reformed.

However, I will not vote for this amendment currently written. Why? Simply I believe it would be easy to gerrymander half of the senate seats with this system.

I spent a good time analyzing every state legislature in the US (see my Windjammer Senate PVI and Windjammer house PVI), and as well their system for redistricting. This redistricting system could be easily hijacked by anyone who has the majority of the governor office, or by a coalition of 2 parties against the third.
Right now, TPP has 3 governors and Labor 2. I'm not a federalist but I have to say that the federalists would be really "weakened" by this system, considering they have no governor.

Oh, just to be clear, I applaud the work done by BK, Bore and rpryor and I don't think there are any bad intents behind this system.

So the redistricting system needs to be fixed.
This is however a good idea to make homelycooking, a well known independent and impartial SoFE, chair of the redistricting.

[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.

I can definitely see myself supporting a change in the redistricting committee, perhaps by making it unanimous or at least 4-1? Although I would say that, due to the ease with which people can move, and the lack of anything tying people down, gerrymandering is far less of an issue than in the UK.

[windjammer]

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.

I can definitely see myself supporting a change in the redistricting committee, perhaps by making it unanmious or at least 4-1? Although I would say that, due to the ease with which people can move, and the lack of anything tying people down, gerrymandering is far less of an issue than in the UK.

No, this redistricting system is terrible and needs to be changed. The federalist party would still have no representative.

[Senator Cris]

I think that the Windjammer's idea is a very good idea. Only the Secretary of Federal Elections should work on the districts.
Considered that the idea is of Windjammer, I think he should present it.

[windjammer]

Sorry for the confusion:
I think homely should be a member, not the only member

[Senator Cris]

Sorry for the confusion:
I think homely should be a member, not the only member

In the original text, homely is a member.

[windjammer]

Sorry for the confusion:
I think homely should be a member, not the only member

In the original text, homely is a member.

Yes, that's the part I like

[Lief 🗽]

Gerrymandering would be a feature of the system, not a bug. Gerrymandering is fun.

[homelycooking]

I have many questions and concerns, and honestly I'm disappointed by what appears to be such a poorly drafted piece of legislation from the "Commission on Electoral Reform" -  a body of which I had no knowledge until today.

1. What happens if the Senate repeatedly rejects the commission's plan, to the point where a new map is not adopted before the next election?
2. What procedure is in place to govern the breaking of a 3-3 tie in a vote by the commission? Is there a quorum for holding a vote in the commission? What role does the chairman have in the commission's proceedings? How, exactly, is the commission supposed to work and deliberate? "Once they have come up with" is a spectacularly vague piece of language.
3. What does the commission do if the population of Atlasia is not divisible by five, or if a state must be split between districts for the sake of population equality? The proposed language requires that districts "must be equal in population" - there appears to be no qualification of that mandate.
4. Why are there no restrictions on contiguity? Can the commission draw a district comprised of a dozen non-contiguous parts?
5. I can't tell if the commission is intended to meet and redistrict once per year ("becoming valid at the August elections") or once every two Class B election cycles ("shall meet for three months after every other election for Class B Seats").
6. Who are "the representatives of the Governors"? Can a governor act as his own "representative"?

I'm not opposed to working with the Senate to take on new responsibilities for the Department, and I apologize if I come off as unnecessarily officious here. But since Atlasia's principal elections officer is only now giving his unsolicited opinion on this matter, he regrets to inform the Senate and the "Commission on Electoral Reform" that he is opposed to the adoption of this amendment as currently drafted.

[TNF]

This is why we shouldn't have commissions or committees.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So basically it turns back the clock to 2008 (without getting us Grissom and Warrick back on CSI I would add, which is a travesty).


I am not certain about this, and the complexity of the district process is my biggest concern right now. As homely pointed out there are a number of pitfalls where it could fail and if thats the case, we need to have addressed as many of them as possible in advance so as to avoid them if we are truly determined to head down this path.

[Oakvale]

Well,
I like the idea of "senate districts", the current at large system needs to be reformed.

However, I will not vote for this amendment currently written. Why? Simply I believe it would be easy to gerrymander half of the senate seats with this system.

I spent a good time analyzing every state legislature in the US (see my Windjammer Senate PVI and Windjammer house PVI), and as well their system for redistricting. This redistricting system could be easily hijacked by anyone who has the majority of the governor office, or by a coalition of 2 parties against the third.
Right now, TPP has 3 governors and Labor 2. I'm not a federalist but I have to say that the federalists would be really "weakened" by this system, considering they have no governor.

Oh, just to be clear, I applaud the work done by BK, Bore and rpryor and I don't think there are any bad intents behind this system.

So the redistricting system needs to be fixed.
This is however a good idea to make homelycooking, a well known independent and impartial SoFE, chair of the redistricting.

Why are the Federalists owed anything in this process? Surely one of the benefits is that it gives added importance to regional offices.

[bore]

I certainly envisaged the commission as more a starting point than a finished proposal, and this proposal isn't finished.

So, to take homely's points:

1. If the senate and committee failed to propose a bill in time (probably two or three weeks before the relevant election to give people time to campaign) it would then fall to someone obviously non partisan to propose a sort of minimal change map,I'd probably suggest either the GM or the SOFE

2. Presumably a 3-3 split with no resolution would lead the maps being given to one of the non partisan offices I mentioned above. As to how the commission is meant to work maybe like the washington one currently? As many governors propose a map and then a vote is taken on them? With regard to the inner workings of the committee we definitely need to define them more, but that should probably be in a separate bill (which we attach to this amendment) rather than writing it all out in the constitution.
3. That language should be qualified to have a tolerance of like 10%.
4. I think we should probably be looking for a restriction on contiguity of 1 maybe (the main reason for this is New York, which might force a northeast regional seat in all but name, but there might be a more elegant way of doing this than just allowing one discontinuity.
5. I think the intent is once every 2 4 month cycles (which I would support because the population is so fluid) but that also need clearing up.
6. I'd guess so. As I said though, I think we should write up a separate bill addressing how the committee works in this one.

[Cranberry]

I am not opposed to the possibilty of districts in principle, but as Homely said, this specific leaves a dozen loopholes and problems. I am inclined to think bore's proposals would cancel out those problems in the original version, so I would support such a version.

Was not RPryor chairman of this committee? I would like to hear his input here as well.

[Senator Cris]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose that "becoming valid at the August elections" is referred only to 2015, considered that At-Large elections are held in April, August and December.
So, considered that it is referred to all the elections, I think we should remove the part "becoming valid at the August elections" and insert this part in another point.

[Maxwell]

Gerrymandering would be a feature of the system, not a bug. Gerrymandering is fun.

I agree, I like the idea of the Senate gerrymandering districts within the game.

[windjammer]

Hmmm,
Why not a system that would allocate the seats in term of party representation, with a 2/3 majority needed? That would be more representative than this current system.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm undecided on this, but I'm leaning towards supporting it (at least supporting the idea of returning to districts). I think it could inject a lot of conflict and controversy (which is fun) into the game. It would make regional offices important, as Justice Oakvale has pointed out. This would increase interest in governor's races, a lot of which can be very boring these days. Plus, as I've already said, gerrymandering would be a "feature" not a "bug" here. It would give political parties an incentive to organize and focus on winning gubernatorial contests across the country, and it would give voters a reason to pay more attention to these regional races.