Vote No to the Electoral Reform Amendment

[bore]

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.

[bore]

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.

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.

[bore]

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.

[bore]

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.

[bore]

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.

[bore]

I guess it's possible that an RG could draw an outrageous gerrymander, but if they did they wouldn't find themselves RG for much longer.

More importantly though, due to the mobility of the atlasian population and the thin margins of practically every seat it's impossible to draw a cast iron map for anyone.

[bore]

I guess it's possible that an RG could draw an outrageous gerrymander, but if they did they wouldn't find themselves RG for much longer.

More importantly though, due to the mobility of the atlasian population and the thin margins of practically every seat it's impossible to draw a cast iron map for anyone.

But would they?

No. They wouldn't.

The RG can be dismissed by the president at any time and for any reason and the presidential elections are impossible to gerrymander so the RG will not be the same party as the president a lot of the time, even if there is a skillful north carolina style gerrymander (which, again, with the levels of mobility we have, is impossible).

Any outrageous gerrymander would be incredibly unpopular and, I speak from experience here, there are always citizens willing to be RG.

[bore]

Perhaps it could be pointed out that abolishing them and replacing them with districts would actually increase the power of the Regions? It would transform overnight the Governors into some of the most powerful actors in the game, and this, in turn, would increase the prestige of regional politics.

At the expense of diluting their voice in Nyman, a place that has a long and bad history of taking more and more for itself and leaving the regions with less and less to play with. Nice Try.

Is there any evidence regional senators are more pro regional rights than at large senators?

[bore]

I echo what Senator Talleyrand says.  It would be a real shame for you to feel you have to leave Labor or the asembly, because you don't.