Do you support the "Electoral Reform Amendment"?

[Lief 🗽]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=207022.250

Please vote.

[Oakvale]

Enthusiastically and unhesitatingly.

[Türkisblau]

Enthusiastically and unhesitatingly.

[/]

Yes

[ilikeverin]

No.  Why not abolish regional seats and replace them with districts instead?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It sounds like a step forward.  But I need to know more.

[Cranberry]

Obviously

[Senator Cris]

Yes. It's a great step and will make the game more interesting than now.

[The Other Castro]

Yes, I like the new elements of competitiveness that it will bring.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

No.  Why not abolish regional seats and replace them with districts instead?

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes! Redistricting needs to be part of this game again.

[Lumine]

Of course. I'm proud of the work done by the Commission and the Senate on this, and At-Large elections have not been terribly inspiring for quite a while.

[Simfan34]

No.

[Flake]

I'm very supportive of this.

[Adam Griffin]

No.  Why not abolish regional seats and replace them with districts instead?

Ideally, I would have liked to have seen this too. Of course, regionalists would have felt that their seats were being taken away from them, but this system will likewise make all of the Senators similar in terms of their method of election and the constituencies they represent. Perhaps it is just because I am so accustomed to seeing knee-jerk behavior, but it is kind of interesting that more on the Right aren't raising hell for...oh, whatever reason it is they do.

[bore]

In the real world I would be all for at large elections, and in fact would probably be agitating to abolish regional seats all together. But atlasia is not the real world. We are, first and foremost, an election simulation. Having dull elections kind of defeats the purpose of the game. And the at large elections are boring.

[Clyde1998]

I'm opposed to this.

We're losing at-large elections and replacing them with districts which are likely to be broadly similar to the regions. I'd prefer to have local  I feel that the national elections should use the D'Hondt method (Wiki). This method will give smaller parties more of a chance - and it would reflect the voters more. Independent candidates can still stand, but they would be limited to one seat - while parties could win multiple seats.

I feel that we should change the voting system instead of changing the structure of the election.

[cinyc]

No.  I am opposed to Labor's newest attempt to stamp out minor parties and dominate the game.  At least minor parties have a chance at winning At Large seats. They won't after the amendment, as Labor and perhaps TPP conspire to gerrymander seats to keep and sustain their majority.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

No.  I am opposed to Labor's newest attempt to stamp out minor parties and dominate the game.  At least minor parties have a chance at winning At Large seats. They won't after the amendment, as Labor and perhaps TPP conspire to gerrymander seats to keep and sustain their majority.

an independent just won the south's regional senate seat…

[Adam Griffin]

No.  I am opposed to Labor's newest attempt to stamp out minor parties and dominate the game.  At least minor parties have a chance at winning At Large seats. They won't after the amendment, as Labor and perhaps TPP conspire to gerrymander seats to keep and sustain their majority.

This whole thing was initiated by 2 TPP members and the President. If there is a structural advantage to be gained by changing the method of election for these seats, I certainly don't see how it is for the largest party - which is horribly, unevenly dispersed throughout the country - to be taken out of a national contest and having its influence cut into five mismatched pieces. This is why I've remained lukewarm and relatively neutral to the outcome all along: I have no idea how it'll play out. I can't fathom how this radically benefits anyone to a large degree; if it does, then it'll likely be TPP or parties like it that follow - that's why you see near unanimous support from them and mixed support from everyone else.

AFAIK, this was a multi-partisan effort and one that I thought was a very, very bad idea in the original form that emerged from the committee. The provisions in the amendment since its inception have been drastically improved, which makes it more palatable than before. All I know is that the party of which I'm a member always survives and will find a way to do so in any new dynamic as well. I don't disagree with the premise of who it'll hurt, but you might want to point your fingers elsewhere as to who it might help.

[SWE]

Obviously, yes

No.  I am opposed to Labor's newest attempt to stamp out minor parties and dominate the game.  At least minor parties have a chance at winning At Large seats. They won't after the amendment, as Labor and perhaps TPP conspire to gerrymander seats to keep and sustain their majority.

I like this post because it's almost the perfect opposite of reality

No.  Why not abolish regional seats and replace them with districts instead?

This sounds reasonable but a problem with it is that it would maintain at-large elections

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I support the amendment.

In our at-large elections, the last two seats are usually settled by arcane preference math, and that lends an advantage to the largest parties who are better positioned to coordinate strategic preference among their preferred candidates. The result is elections that are dull, difficult to follow, and unfair.

If you look at the Senate's history, there's no clear pattern where independent or minor parties are more likely to win at-large seats.

Over the past year-and-a-half, only four parties have won at-large seats (Labor, Federalists, TPP, and Democratic Republicans), and the only elected independent won the regional seat in the IDS. You have to go back to the first couple of elections after dissolution - an unusual moment in the game's history - to find independent or minor party candidates winning at-large Senate seats. (The only real exception that I'm aware of since then is Xahar.)

this is a good point. i will vote yes.

[rpryor03]

I support the amendment.

In our at-large elections, the last two seats are usually settled by arcane preference math, and that lends an advantage to the largest parties who are better positioned to coordinate strategic preference among their preferred candidates. The result is elections that are dull, difficult to follow, and unfair.

If you look at the Senate's history, there's no clear pattern where independent or minor parties are more likely to win at-large seats.

Over the past year-and-a-half, only four parties have won at-large seats (Labor, Federalists, TPP, and Democratic Republicans), and the only elected independent won the regional seat in the IDS. You have to go back to the first couple of elections after dissolution - an unusual moment in the game's history - to find independent or minor party candidates winning at-large Senate seats. (The only real exception that I'm aware of since then is Xahar.)

Five.

Cris won as a member of Civic Renewal.

[Poirot]

It seems a Senator will be able to hold the Register General office if the amendement about Cabinet roles passes.

And now with the Electoral Reform amendment, the RG could potentially be the person drawing districts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Senator comes from a district, he/she would draw his/her own district. That this could happen is very troubling. 

[Senator Cris]

It seems a Senator will be able to hold the Register General office if the amendement about Cabinet roles passes.

And now with the Electoral Reform amendment, the RG could potentially be the person drawing districts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Senator comes from a district, he/she would draw his/her own district. That this could happen is very troubling. 

It can be solved with a new amendment to the Constitution that adress this concern.