Vote No to the Electoral Reform Amendment
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:19:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Vote No to the Electoral Reform Amendment
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Vote No to the Electoral Reform Amendment  (Read 3450 times)
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 23, 2015, 05:32:50 PM »

We needed a no campaign - so I created one

The Vote No campaign represents everyone who is opposed to the Electoral Reform Amendment that is set to replace at-large elections with districts, when electing new Senators.

Why Vote No?

One Senator per district means the end of PR and at-large elections
The proposed amendment replaces the at-large elections with district elections. This means that only one one candidate is elected per district; there would be no proportional representation in the five new districts - Instant Run-Off Voting is not proportional. A different voting system could be used in the at-large elections to increase the chances of smaller parties being elected - such as D'Hondt.

An increased chance of majority rule
The proposed amendment allows only one candidate to be elected from one region and district. This could push smaller parties out of the Senate, despite having large enough support to be elected via the current at-large elections. While it's currently unlikely that smaller parties would win at-large seats, the proposed changes would kill their chances forever. With only one candidate being elected per region and district, then there is an increased chance that one party could win nearly every region and district - and have a majority in the Senate. This could lead to one party pushing through legislation against the wishes of, potentially, the majority of citizens. With the current system, majority rule less likely to happen. The Senate should be about collaboration, not majority rule.

The potential to gerrymander
The proposed district boundaries keeps most of the Pacific states together and the South-East states together (with a few minor exceptions) - whereas the Canadian seats, which are spread between each region, are located as one district. There is nothing in the amendment to suggest that the boundaries have to be roughly the same when they are re-drawn. What's to stop the Pacific seats from being placed in four different districts next time?

I call on everyone opposed to the current changes to sign up to the campaign below and invite everyone to state their individual reasons why they're opposed to the amendment proposals.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2015, 05:34:36 PM »

Making gerrymandering a possibility would be a positive feature. This is literally a forum about making maps, why not incorporate it into Atlasia? Gerrymandering is fun.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2015, 07:20:14 PM »

I'm very much undecided/ambivalent about this, but I'm glad that there is organization on both sides. Especially when, despite what the unanimity of one party who stands to gain the most from this may lead one to believe, there is hardly a consensus yet.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2015, 07:21:57 PM »

Glad to see the opposition is organising, too. We should have a debate with a moderator etc. Regions will start voting shortly but there'd be time.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2015, 07:46:30 PM »

I would consider moderating. I voted in favour, but I certainly see both sides. Don't know if people would consider me qualified to do something like this though. Maybe I'd do it through a national paper.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,517
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2015, 10:14:38 PM »

x poirot

I will copy what I said to the Senate before they voted:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also there is the situation if the drawing commission can't agree, the drawing of districts will be done by one person, the Register General, and with a new rule the RG could hold another office such as Senator. I would prefer the reverse, have the RG on the commission and the Secretary of Elections be the one person drawing districts if there is no agreement.

I also see a risk of the Governor's role becoming more partisan, to hold that office to have a say in drawing districts instead of having someone in the role that is best to lead the region, propose legislation, keep the region active etc. A party might want to get the Governship instead of letting a politician from another party doing a good job at it continue.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,542


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2015, 10:57:52 PM »

x NE Speaker DKrol
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2015, 10:58:32 PM »

I've been fairly neutral to the whole idea for the most part. I worked to add a lot of the structure that now exists in the amendment so that it would be a better amendment than what was originally introduced, which I believe it to be. As I've told Senator Polnut and others in chat this evening, however, I am beginning to have considerations about exactly how this would work long-term with respect to improving the dynamic we are seeking to change. If we can only muster up 6 candidates for 5 seats in a Senate election with no boundaries, then are we really confident that we will be able to generate 2 or 3 interested bodies in 5 different districts of 35 people each?  These would look very similar to regional Senate elections, which can and cannot be competitive depending on the region and the cycle. I have a lot to think about; I didn't expect the bill to suddenly lurch forward so suddenly to a vote after my final comments in the thread.
Logged
Prince of Salem
JoMCaR
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,639
Peru


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2015, 11:46:37 PM »

x Altsomn Stmarken

There's better ideas we could put up for Electoral Reform. This one, for the reasons mentioned by Clyde above, is not the best way to go.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,977
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2015, 06:51:31 AM »

x poirot

I will copy what I said to the Senate before they voted:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also there is the situation if the drawing commission can't agree, the drawing of districts will be done by one person, the Register General, and with a new rule the RG could hold another office such as Senator. I would prefer the reverse, have the RG on the commission and the Secretary of Elections be the one person drawing districts if there is no agreement.

I also see a risk of the Governor's role becoming more partisan, to hold that office to have a say in drawing districts instead of having someone in the role that is best to lead the region, propose legislation, keep the region active etc. A party might want to get the Governship instead of letting a politician from another party doing a good job at it continue.

Funny you have this position, considering how cruel STV has been to your attempts to get elected.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2015, 06:59:32 AM »

I've been fairly neutral to the whole idea for the most part. I worked to add a lot of the structure that now exists in the amendment so that it would be a better amendment than what was originally introduced, which I believe it to be. As I've told Senator Polnut and others in chat this evening, however, I am beginning to have considerations about exactly how this would work long-term with respect to improving the dynamic we are seeking to change. If we can only muster up 6 candidates for 5 seats in a Senate election with no boundaries, then are we really confident that we will be able to generate 2 or 3 interested bodies in 5 different districts of 35 people each?  These would look very similar to regional Senate elections, which can and cannot be competitive depending on the region and the cycle. I have a lot to think about; I didn't expect the bill to suddenly lurch forward so suddenly to a vote after my final comments in the thread.

The 6 candidates isn't everyone who wanted to run though. In the at larges we had to run Lief and Blair because we knew if we ran anyone else the vote might split and we'd have lost a seat. But if there were districts we could have tried to get new canadaland or clyde or dempgh or any number of other proising labour figures. Not all of them would have wanted it, but I'm sure at least some of them would. And the same is true for other parties.

And yeah, it's true that not all of the districts all of the time will be like the last south election or my northeast ones or tnf's in the midwest or windjammer's first election in the mideast or the tyrion/ superique/flo one. But I'm certain that in every district election there will be at least one and probably multiple elections which are more exciting on their own than any at large elections.  The other positive districts have over regionals is that we can shake things up, as the districts change regularily we won't see someone cornering a seat for years on end.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2015, 12:19:11 PM »

The other positive districts have over regionals is that we can shake things up, as the districts change regularily we won't see someone cornering a seat for years on end.

Regions can be changed drastically too. If you think I survived through constantly having favorable demographics, you are wrong. Tongue
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2015, 12:41:47 PM »

The other positive districts have over regionals is that we can shake things up, as the districts change regularily we won't see someone cornering a seat for years on end.

Regions can be changed drastically too. If you think I survived through constantly having favorable demographics, you are wrong. Tongue

Of course it's true that regions change as well, anyone who has been here for more than 5 minutes knows that. On the other hand it is still quite rare for them to change ideologically. Only the pacific and the mideast have radically changed ideologically since I joined 3 years ago. More importantly, in a region it is easy to get entrenched regardless of real life factors. Just as in real life, it is easy to get incumbents holding districts their party shouldn't hold because they've been there long enough to build relationships.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2015, 12:47:33 PM »

The other positive districts have over regionals is that we can shake things up, as the districts change regularily we won't see someone cornering a seat for years on end.

Regions can be changed drastically too. If you think I survived through constantly having favorable demographics, you are wrong. Tongue

Of course it's true that regions change as well, anyone who has been here for more than 5 minutes knows that. On the other hand it is still quite rare for them to change ideologically. Only the pacific and the mideast have radically changed ideologically since I joined 3 years ago. More importantly, in a region it is easy to get entrenched regardless of real life factors. Just as in real life, it is easy to get incumbents holding districts their party shouldn't hold because they've been there long enough to build relationships.

Not all campaigns are based on ideology though. The South was just as Conservative in 2010 versus 2009, but partywise it has changed (hence the origin of the IDS name).
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,517
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2015, 03:17:55 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is the issue of term limits. No need to change the way we elect some senators.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2015, 03:49:48 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is the issue of term limits. No need to change the way we elect some senators.

It's not the issue of term limits (which, for the record, I oppose) though. It is a good thing to have experienced senators but it's also important to have new blood coming in. Generally speaking regional senators find it easier to remain in office than at large senators, as a look at the longest serving senators can confirm. There has been concern here that districts would be like the regional senate seats in that you would get people taking seats for a long time, potentially stopping new blood coming in in all of the seats - that said the senate has a fairly high turnover anyway so it's almost never that big a problem. Still, there is at least some potential if there are two regional seats for there to be a sort of blockage.

The point I was making in that post, and that is why I compared them specifically to regional seats, is that districts by their very nature are less likely to lead to long serving senators, so there won't be a blockage problem where new blood can't be elected.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,517
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2015, 05:13:08 PM »

The problems of new blood/ incuments staying long and parties wanting to run more candidates could be dealt by political parties. They could decide to have newer candidates if they want to, they have a primary system or encourage incumbent to seek another office.

If parties are too afraid to run many candidates in at-large elections that is there problem. Then they complain it's not enough competitive. You can't know what will happen in the election. I would not have guessed TPP could have enough votes to elect two candidates recently if the vote was split evebly. Maybe it would not have happened because a vote for one of the candidate is not a certainty for the other one. 
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2015, 05:24:47 PM »

My point wasn't necessarily that we should introduce districts to increase the amount of new bleed in the senate (though I think it would do that) but that it would not lead to less new blood.

And with regard to how many candidates a party runs, they don't really have a choice. Labor, for instance, is practically guaranteed two senate seats. If we ran three candidates not only would we not get them we may endanger one of the two seats we were already guaranteed. It's not a choice we really get to make. To run any less than or any more than 2 would be negligent on our part.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,517
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2015, 05:37:53 PM »

We will be losing a different way of electing senators, in a big multiple elected candidates way.
There is not teritorial subdivision, you can win by getting votes of few people who are dispersed, you don't need a majority to win and you don't need to ask voters to strategically move to help you.
Logged
Poirot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,517
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2015, 05:50:33 PM »

A candidate can get elected with less than 20% of the votes in the at-large election. In a district or region you need a majority. So yes it is easier for someone in a smaller party or less mainstream to get elected in the at-large system. 
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2015, 06:03:15 PM »

A candidate can get elected with less than 20% of the votes in the at-large election. In a district or region you need a majority. So yes it is easier for someone in a smaller party or less mainstream to get elected in the at-large system. 

It's clear that makes sense in theory, but what I think Nix is asking is if there is actually any evidence for this. If it were the case we would see a notably more independents and people outside the mainstrea elected at large than in the regions. But the point is we don't.

And actually this does make sense, because, despite the counter intuitive nature of it, regional senate elections are more, not less, likely to elect independents and people with views outside the mainstream. For instance, the closest you've ever come to being elected to the senate was when you were the only challenger against me for the northeast regional seat.

The reason this is the case is because, simply put, extreme views are held by far far less than 20% of the population, but it is also the case that in at least one region more than 50% of the electorate prefer a given extreme view to the alternative. If every person in the country voted for the candidate most similar to them TNF would never stand a chance, but in the midwest, more than half of the voters prefer him to a generic centrist. Similarly almost no one in the northeast would vote for someone with deus's views, but nearly half of them preferred an extreme libertarian to a laborite.

Far from harming independents and people with unorthodox views, voting for this amendment is the best way to help them get more seats.
Logged
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2015, 07:14:20 PM »
« Edited: April 24, 2015, 07:17:16 PM by homelycooking »

I think we aren't realizing it in part because many people don't really understand how to vote effectively under STV. This weakness is hardly to their detriment, however, because the electoral system can be maddeningly complex. Under STV, a voter often needs to vote in such a way that both totally disregards his true preferences and aims to ensure both the election of the fifth senator and the defeat of the sixth candidate. However, the electoral calculus that leads a voter to vote in a particular way may completely change in the course of an hour, turning a voter's STV strategy against himself. It has always frustrated me that voters frequently neglect their lower preferences or rush recklessly through voting - they're avoiding the strategic decision-making needed to vote effectively under our current system.

Public ballots in theory make STV a source of complex intrigue and strategy, but the nuances of the STV chess game are often lost on an electorate that prefers to play FPTP checkers. Again, I do not intend to gratuitously insult voters' intelligence. Their expectation is a reasonable one - that expressing one's true preferences will lead to the proper electoral result - and one that is improperly encouraged by STV's fair and proportional reputation. But there is no need for an STV candidate to receive 13 votes in excess of the quota, as Polnut did, or for NC Yankee to keep receiving first preferences long after his election was assured. Surely they were flattered by the overwhelming show of support, but many of those voters would have used their votes far more effectively in determining whether Poirot or Cris would be the fifth Senator.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2015, 09:30:00 PM »

You make a good point homelycooking.

In the past there were instances of people saying, "So and so is safe" vote for me, and this actually cost Feds their second seat back in April 2013. This time, I assumed the quota would be 21 or 22 but it hit 23 and that was with much lower Fed Turnout then I was hoping for.

I don't think people don't understand this though homely. In the past the preference counts were usually rather close. This time there was a group of people who didn't much care for labor, loved Polnut and there was no one else they were extremely passionate about so blew Polnut through the ceiling (whereas I merely danced on the ceiling. Couldn't resist Wink). They know that some flexibility is necessary to get your prefered guys in, what they often aren't aware of is the latest count and that was always a problem on the right. I remember in December 2013 at the end not knowing who to vote for at that point because the counts hadn't been updated. And so aside from bgwah who knew exactly how someone needed to vote as each vote was cast and therefore was able to message people accordingly to get them out and win that second seat by a fraction of a percent, most people don't have the latest numbers in their head.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2015, 08:34:01 AM »

xSimfan

Don't let them gain any more ground with this latest plot of theirs.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2015, 09:02:11 AM »

xSimfan

Don't let them gain any more ground with this latest plot of theirs.
Who's 'they'?  People who like competitive elections?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 11 queries.