Atlasians for Electoral Reform is a non-partisan group that will campaign in support of the
Electoral Reform Amendment, a landmark piece of legislation diligently authored by the Senate after months of debate and championed by President Bore, that will replace stagnant at-large elections with a district-based system.
I urge all in favour to sign up below.
F.A.Q.
Why should I vote for the Electoral Reform Amendment?
There's a few reasons!
1. Better campaignsThe last at-large race saw an utterly predictable result, with the only real question on Election Day being in what order the candidates would be returned. Compare this to exciting regional elections, such as John Bore-ah's strings of razor's edge victories, TNF's intense campaigns against his challengers, Windjammer's Mideast upset, and the race in the South in February. When's the last time you looked at an at-large race and thought 'that was an exciting campaign'? The exception to this are, arguably, at-large specials, because they are the most like districts - candidates campaigning for a single seat, against each other.
In the new system, candidates will have to tailor their message to a localised audience, and, crucially, they'll have to campaign against the other candidates. It won't be enough to sit back and relax, trusting transfers from your party colleagues to carry you over the finising line on the last count. The changeability of districts will also introduce an element of unpredictability and suspense into each election. Campaigns will be more exciting, more personalised, and more fun for all concerned.
2. AccountabilityWhile at-large Senators technically have the entire nation as their constituents, in practice the murkiness of this distinction, as well as the fact that responsiblity is diluted and dispersed among five individuals, mean that at-large Senators are not clearly accountable to any particular set of constituents, in contrast to regional Senators.
Under the new system, Senators will have a specific constiteuncy to which they will have to justify themselves and maintain the support of if they wish to continue in office. Once again, Senators cannot rely on a mere party bloc vote or transfers from a more popular running mate. You, the people, will have more power over your representatives in a district-based system.
3. A greater role for the regionsThe ERA is dependent on the inut of the five regional Governors for the collaborative redistricting process, lending further importance to regional politics and ensuring that gubernatorial elections will be hotly contested. The regions, the building block of Atlasia, will be more integrated than ever before in federal election politics. There's also the likely possibility that regional legislatures can involve themselves in the process, for example, by requiring that the Governor present a proposed redistricting plan to the legislature before they sign off on it.
4. More opportunities for new playersAs the President has noted, it is usually very predictable how many candidates each party runs in an at-large election - one or two. Any more brings the fear of splitting the vote, with unfortunate consequences. Such a system inevitably favours more established and senior figures who can rely on a personal voter base, at the expense of newer players. With five districts, a party could run a candidate in each district - instead of one or two, each party could field five, giving a golden opportunity to new members to contest Senate seats.
But don't at-large elections provide an opportunity for minor party or independent candidates?
No. This may theoretically be the case but as we have seen time and time again, in practice the results will almost always be the same barring some kind of major external event that alters the dynamic of power - the well-organised Labor Party will return two Senators through excellent vote management, the Federalists will return one, and the third and fourth parties, TPP and CR, will return one each.
This will occasionally be disrupted with exceptional candidates, such as Bacon King's election as a second TPP candidate, or a particularly hostile environment to one party, such as JCL edging into the Senate at the expense of Alfred F. Jones, but in general at-large elections are predictable and it's worth noting that in both cases truly independen candidates had little or no chance. Compare that to the South, where an independent candidate ousted a long-serving and established Senator through building a broad coalition, something that would be impossible in a national election.
Wouldn't districts allow for gerrymandering?
The proposed amendment requires a redistricting process with all Governors and the SoFE agreeing on the makeup of the districts. Yes, this could in theory allow for unrepresentative districts, but that possibility is a feature, not a bug - redistricting will be a focus of lively debate and perhaps even controversy, and as mentioned above the Governor's office will take on a crucial importance as opposed to being seen all too often as a stepping stone for higher office. It's also important to note that it's very unlikely that all five Governors would agree on a map that unduly favours a single party or political orientation.
As a robot, I prefer the current system of mass PMings and turnout machines to a localised, personalised campaign.Then you should probably vote against the ERA. Anyone else should give it their full support in the voting booth.
