Vote Aye: Atlasians for Electoral Reform

[Poirot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The argument that Senators will be more accountable in districts is limited. Districts are short term groupings since there is a drawing commission that can make changes regularly. So not the same voters will stay in the district and even nothing says the electoral senator from a district will not be moved to another district in the drawing process. The Senator doesn't even know what his constituency will be next.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

x SMilo

[Dr. Cynic]

One of the arguments against currently being used is that it will lead to the end of PR and to gerrymandering. However, we've never really used proportional representation in Atlasia anyway. Preference voting isn't PR as has been pointed out and we're unlikely to ever dump preference voting.

As far as gerrymandering, I've never liked the thought of it for this game or otherwise, but I remember the last time we used Districts, it didn't really change all that frequently. Are districts anymore likely to be gerrymandered with the new amendment?

[Poirot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would the legislatures have a right to get involved in the process? I haven't seen that in the constitutional amendment so maybe that would not be legal.

[cinyc]

As I said to Griffin in the other thread, at large elections artificially lower the number of candidates. For instance in my own party we only run two for at large because if we run anymore we risk splitting the vote and losing a seat. But we have a larger pool of possible senate candidates we would run if there were districts. We would try and get clyde or new canadaland or any number of others. At least some of them would want to run. The same is also true of other parties.

So you're basically admitting that the new system will lead to more Labor Senators.  How convenient!

[bore]

As I said to Griffin in the other thread, at large elections artificially lower the number of candidates. For instance in my own party we only run two for at large because if we run anymore we risk splitting the vote and losing a seat. But we have a larger pool of possible senate candidates we would run if there were districts. We would try and get clyde or new canadaland or any number of others. At least some of them would want to run. The same is also true of other parties.

So you're basically admitting that the new system will lead to more Labor Senators.  How convenient!

Running ≠ Being elected

As I made abunduntly clear by saying "for instance" I could have done exactly the same thing with the federalists but didn't know the party well enough to have named examples. But, just taking a look at the citizens list Jomcar and JCL and Jerseyrules and Oldies and Cassius among others could all be potential candidates. And the same can be said for the D-Rs, CRs and TPP

[Simfan34]

As I said to Griffin in the other thread, at large elections artificially lower the number of candidates. For instance in my own party we only run two for at large because if we run anymore we risk splitting the vote and losing a seat. But we have a larger pool of possible senate candidates we would run if there were districts. We would try and get clyde or new canadaland or any number of others. At least some of them would want to run. The same is also true of other parties.

So you're basically admitting that the new system will lead to more Labor Senators.  How convenient!

Yep!

[SWE]

As I said to Griffin in the other thread, at large elections artificially lower the number of candidates. For instance in my own party we only run two for at large because if we run anymore we risk splitting the vote and losing a seat. But we have a larger pool of possible senate candidates we would run if there were districts. We would try and get clyde or new canadaland or any number of others. At least some of them would want to run. The same is also true of other parties.

So you're basically admitting that the new system will lead to more Labor Senators.  How convenient!

Yep!

It helps to read posts before responding to them, guys

[Oakvale]

The fact that this is a communist plot is evident by the fact that noted socialist PiT supports the plan and Labor leader Adam Griffin is ambivalent.

[Simfan34]

It's all smoke and mirrors designed to lead people astray.

[bgwah]

How many of you actually remember district elections? lol

[Goldwater]

x Goldwater

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's all smoke and mirrors designed to lead people astray.

     That's what I've come to realize about it now. I really like the idea, but I am beginning to question whether now is the best time.

[bore]

It's very very easy (and fun) to drop dark hints about how it's conspiracy and they (the swine) are pulling everyones strings.

But unless you can provide some sort of evidence, or, at the very least a logical argument it's no more intellectually respectable than claiming Elvis is actually the pope. And so far Simfan han't done anything close to that, so it's sad to see that he's convincing people.

I don't agree, but I can and do respect not supporting this because you like at large elections or you worry about regional elections being too similar to districts  or many other reasons but the idea that this is a nefarious conspiracy is just categorically not true.

[Bacon King]

How many of you actually remember district elections? lol

District elections sucked back then because we only had like 12 voters per district. The at-large system made sense at the time.

Never understood why we got rid of districts.

X - Earl

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66341.0

Aside from Spade and BrandonH, everyone in the Senate at the time supported it and there wasn't much debate on the merits for or against. Probably, just like with this one, the merits were debated on the AFE board.

interesting read here, actually: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66680.0

There was no debate at the time because it was the second time they passed it

[Hatman 🍁]

Never understood why we got rid of districts.

X - Earl

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66341.0

Aside from Spade and BrandonH, everyone in the Senate at the time supported it and there wasn't much debate on the merits for or against. Probably, just like with this one, the merits were debated on the AFE board.

What's particularly amusing about that link (surprised you missed it) is that I voted aye! Call me a hypocrite then!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Never understood why we got rid of districts.

X - Earl

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66341.0

Aside from Spade and BrandonH, everyone in the Senate at the time supported it and there wasn't much debate on the merits for or against. Probably, just like with this one, the merits were debated on the AFE board.

What's particularly amusing about that link (surprised you missed it) is that I voted aye! Call me a hypocrite then!

Who said I missed it?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Additionally... I'm all up for abolishing the regional seats as well. They are (and always were) an example of egregious malapportionment. Additionally the classic reason for them (i.e. that they strengthen the Regions) has proven quite untrue. But that is a separate battle and I don't think we can realistically consider fighting it until the principle of districting returns.

You don't say!

[Marokai Backbeat]

I will happily support it once my region decides to get out of bed and open a voting booth.

[Hatman 🍁]

Never understood why we got rid of districts.

X - Earl

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66341.0

Aside from Spade and BrandonH, everyone in the Senate at the time supported it and there wasn't much debate on the merits for or against. Probably, just like with this one, the merits were debated on the AFE board.

What's particularly amusing about that link (surprised you missed it) is that I voted aye! Call me a hypocrite then!

Who said I missed it?

I think my thought process was back then that we needed to implement proportional representation, and I figured that having at large senators was a step in the right direction toward that goal.

What hasn't changed in my opinion is my desire for the Senate to be increased to 15 (5 Regional Senators, 5 District Senators, 5 At Large STV Senators) OR introduce a bicameral legislature (5 Regional Senators + 10 House Members elected using MMP)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Never understood why we got rid of districts.

X - Earl

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66341.0

Aside from Spade and BrandonH, everyone in the Senate at the time supported it and there wasn't much debate on the merits for or against. Probably, just like with this one, the merits were debated on the AFE board.

What's particularly amusing about that link (surprised you missed it) is that I voted aye! Call me a hypocrite then!

Who said I missed it?

I think my thought process was back then that we needed to implement proportional representation, and I figured that having at large senators was a step in the right direction toward that goal.

What hasn't changed in my opinion is my desire for the Senate to be increased to 15 (5 Regional Senators, 5 District Senators, 5 At Large STV Senators) OR introduce a bicameral legislature (5 Regional Senators + 10 House Members elected using MMP)

1. I voted for that When Nappy proposed it (5-5-5)

2. I am actually going to introduce a bicameralist proposal, but 10 is a bit steep for a number. I was thinking 7 to 8 to avoid a net increase in offices. Can you describe MMP?

[Hatman 🍁]

MMP is what they use in Germany. Voters would have two ballots, one for their district and one at-large. They'd vote for who they wanted in their district on one ballot, and then what party they wanted on the other. There could be 5 members elected by district, and the remaining 5 members would be elected proportionally to how people voted on the second ballot. Usually it takes into consideration how people voted at the district level, so that the end result is that the 10 seats are divided as close to possible as how people voted on the second ballot. (i.e. if Labor won 40% of the vote on the party ballot, they would win 4 seats. If they won 4 districts, then they wouldn't win any additional seats from the other ballot.  Members would be elected on the party ballot from party lists. Would make conventions a lot more fun!

[Barnes]

^ I've always thought that party lists would be a fun idea here.

[Clyde1998]

MMP is what they use in Germany. Voters would have two ballots, one for their district and one at-large. They'd vote for who they wanted in their district on one ballot, and then what party they wanted on the other. There could be 5 members elected by district, and the remaining 5 members would be elected proportionally to how people voted on the second ballot. Usually it takes into consideration how people voted at the district level, so that the end result is that the 10 seats are divided as close to possible as how people voted on the second ballot. (i.e. if Labor won 40% of the vote on the party ballot, they would win 4 seats. If they won 4 districts, then they wouldn't win any additional seats from the other ballot.  Members would be elected on the party ballot from party lists. Would make conventions a lot more fun!

I agree with MMP (aka AMS). I feel that this would be a much better system than the one currently being proposed.

[Oakvale]

I encourage all Atlasians, whatever your views, to follow the debate between myself and Cylde on the merits of the ERA. It's been a lot of fun thus far.