Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[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.

[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.

[Cranberry]

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.

What do you have with your party representation fetish here? If the Federalists want representation in redistricting, they should win gubernatorial elections. As simple as that.
This system is the most representative there is.

[Cranberry]

Aye,
Would still oppose the current version but this is an improvement.

[Cranberry]

Continuity could be a problem with New York, as that state would serve as a bottleneck of sorts. A difference of 3 would sound sensible to me, though.

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

I guess that's sensible, I wonder though if it was not wiser to just use the most recent Census?

[Cranberry]

Yes, this seems sensible.

[Cranberry]

I understand your concerns, Senator, but problems could arise this way, as New York State could provide the problem of being a bottleneck. Let's take the example that the ideal district size would be, let's say 25, so everything from 22 to 28 would be permitted. Now, let's assume the six New England states together have a population of 20, and New York has a population of 10. There is no way out now - without New York, the district would be too small; with New York, it would be too big. Thus, we either need a specific exemption just for New York, or a rule that they would not need to be continuos. In our example, we could then take New Jersey, which shall have a population of 3 - and voilà, District 1 is created.

[Cranberry]

Oh, of course, there are people living in Canada as well Thanks, Adam!

Forget everything I said in my last post. Now with this, your amendment is sensible, and I will support it, as neither I don't want no California-NY district...

[Cranberry]

Aye

[Cranberry]

Seems pretty straightforward and sensible to me.

[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.

[Cranberry]

That's better, yes.

I will take back my amendment.

[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

[Cranberry]

NAY

Polnut and Hagrid do have their points when they think this should be carefully planned and exactly outlined.

[Cranberry]

I must say I like the idea behind Griffin's amendment. Putting it at discretion of the DoFE while still keeping a window that is neither to wide nor to tight is I belive the best solution I have yet heard in this discussion.

If you want, I could sponsor the amendment it right now, so it will be passed/rejected swifter? I do understand it also however if you want to introduce it yourself.

[Cranberry]

Aye

As I read it, Special Elections are still there, just not after three weeks before the election? That would make sense to me...

[Cranberry]

Cranberry and myself voting against the rest of the senate? Surprising .

Must be the pinko European curse

[Cranberry]

I guess those are sensible changes. I do as well think that just one person should be the final one responsible to draw the map if the governors are deadlocked, simply because as you said, it would be most unfortunate if the people that should resolve the deadlock are deadlock themselves.

I will sponsor the amendment for you, if you want to.

[Cranberry]

That map looks quite cool, Talleyrand. Me in the same district as Massachusetts and Nova Scotia and the lot sounds interesting

[Cranberry]

Yes, homely raises a good point, we will have to change that clause further to include provinces and territories.
I do also support Talleyrand's amendment, I see not really point in this. Actually, I'd be quite fun to have Puerto Rico in the same district as Alaska, for example.

[Cranberry]

Yes, homely raises a good point, we will have to change that clause further to include provinces and territories.
I do also support Talleyrand's amendment, I see not really point in this. Actually, I'd be quite fun to have Puerto Rico in the same district as Alaska, for example.

Are there any Territories of the Republic of Atlasia? Puerto Rico and Oceania are both states. I'm not sure about DC's status - has it ever been recognized officially as either a state or a territory?

Not that I know, but Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are.

[Cranberry]

I would agree to Talleyrands side of the issue here.

[Cranberry]

I guess you would have to include Canadian territories as well.
Otherwise this looks good to me.