Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I will not support this being in place until the December at-large election, August at the absolute earliest.

Mind you, party GOTV is not my concern, nor should it be.

[windjammer]

Mind you, party GOTV is not my concern, nor should it be.

Oh just to be clear, this isn't for "strategy" of winning seats I'm saying that. This is just for party organization: being able to run candidates.

[Cranberry]

Indeed, yur points mentioned do make sense to me.

Opinion of the following, we could just always change it to December 2015 should this not be passed until, idk, early May/late April?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Talleyrand]

How about this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cranberry]

That's better, yes.

I will take back my amendment.

[Senator Cris]

I'm withdrawing my amendment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

How about this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the language is a little too fluffy, it gives too many outs. I do think we should make clear when we're intending this to start.

[Talleyrand]

It should be okay- three months is the time it would take to create the lines for the process.

[windjammer]

Well, before debating about the amendments:

Senator Polnut has asked to sponsor this bill. Senators, you have 24 hours to object. If there is an objection, a vote will be held.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm a little skeptical as to why it should take three months for the maps to be drawn? That's a disaster waiting to happen. Think about how much the geography could change politically and in terms of registrants per state over that time period. At most, it should be a two-month period: one month for the initial team and one month for the back-up team.

Another concern I have is that with a three-month period, this would presumably be from the end of one election until one month before the next election. This in effect reduces the quality of campaigns across the board (as opposed to just a majority of cases) by preventing anyone from announcing, running or campaigning until one month before the election (after all, they'll have no idea which district they'll be in).

We need to reduce, in my opinion, the amount of time that the redistricting process will take on the front-end (to reduce likelihood of district dynamic changes between redistricting and the election) and on the back-end (to allow more time for campaigning). I've went over this with several scenarios and I actually think the best way to handle this is to cut the redistricting process time in half, from 12 weeks to 6 weeks. Yeah, I'm sure some aren't going to like that, but plot the math out and consider the variables I've outlined, and I think you'll come to the same conclusion. Even if you don't, I've also included an example using 8 weeks. Here's an example:

Current Proposed Method:
April 17-19: At-Large Elections
April 20: Redistricting Process Begins
July 13: Redistricting Process Ends
August 21: District Elections

My Proposed Method (6-week calendar)
April 17-19: At-Large Elections
May 11: Redistricting Process Begins (1st Phase; 21-day period)
June 1: Redistricting Process Begins (2nd Phase; 21-day period)
June 22: Redistricting Process Ends (60 days before election)
August 21: District Elections

My Proposed Method (8-week calendar)
April 17-19: At-Large Elections
May 11: Redistricting Process Begins (1st Phase; 28-day period)
June 8: Redistricting Process Begins (2nd Phase; 28-day period)
July 6: Redistricting Process Ends (46 days before election)
August 21: District Elections

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think I'm the only Senator who has been through the districting process as a Governor. It can be a very easy process, or it can be very lengthy and problematic. It just depends on the mix of those negotiating.

I think the first districting process needs to take a bit of time as it will end up being the 'base' map for future processes. I don't think it's going to take 3 months to do it, but we need to realistic time-table. I'm not entirely opposed to Griff's 6-week process, but I would feel more comfortable with the 8-week one.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm also not very confident in Atlasia's ability to get something done within six weeks. It's unfortunate, but... it's just the way it is. I don't think a one-month campaign is too short.

[Talleyrand]

Keep in mind that if we do pass this bill, we'll need to change the registration period for state changes. Having districts is useless if people can switch states once a day. It needs to be tied to region changes so people can't switch for 6 months.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Keep in mind that if we do pass this bill, we'll need to change the registration period for state changes. Having districts is useless if people can switch states once a day. It needs to be tied to region changes so people can't switch for 6 months.

Senator Talleyrand makes an important point, there are knock-on effects of this that need to be considered.

[Cranberry]

Keep in mind that if we do pass this bill, we'll need to change the registration period for state changes. Having districts is useless if people can switch states once a day. It needs to be tied to region changes so people can't switch for 6 months.

Senator Talleyrand makes an important point, there are knock-on effects of this that need to be considered.

Oh yes, good you reminded us of this. I guess it would make sense to include this measure then also in this amendment, so for the voters to pass/reject it simultaneously.

Regarding the above mentioned points, I do as well think that six weeks can be a bit short for Atlasia, and would rather see a eight week timetable. 46 days for campaign are more than enough I would think, after all, the campaign often starts to kick off just at the beginning of the month of the election.
Mr. Griffin raises an important point, though, and I agree that it is wiser to keep the redistricting time as short as possible (eight weeks / six weeks), as the problem of the change of the political landscape in between redistricting and the election could render gerrymanders near impossible, which would be too fun to let go

[windjammer]

Senator Polnut is now the sponsor of this bill.

How about this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators, you have 36 hours to object.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I object, only for the reasons I outlined. There should be a hard deadline attached.

[windjammer]

Senators, a vote is now open on Talleyrand's amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[Lief 🗽]

Abstain

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

I agree with Polnut, sorry Talleyrand. A change as big as this one needs to be spelled out very clearly.

[windjammer]

Aye

Talleyrand's amendment is a step in the right direction.

[TNF]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I will propose an amendment if this one passes.