Vote No to the Electoral Reform Amendment

[Poirot]

x poirot

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

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.

[Poirot]

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.

[Poirot]

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. 

[Poirot]

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.

[Poirot]

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. 

[Poirot]

I would argue that these interests are better protected by transforming the Governors from irrelevant voting booth operators into real players.

No need to denigrate Governors. They are not irrelevant. They are important local leaders. They have a role in legislative process, they can veto legislation, they have power of appointments, they can help guide new players, they can recruit citizens to the region, they can work with other Governors etc.

I don't understand how it helps the game to denigrate many offices. When it's not Governors who are irrelevant, it's at-large senators who take part in boring elections and are less reliable. Before it was regional assembly who were called not important. And people don't read what candidates write during a campaign so what is the point of running for offices that are dismissed.

[Poirot]

At-Large elections are a shared experience by all the nation. Regional or districts are focused on a limited number or people. I don't have good memory of regional elections that are not from my region.

[Poirot]

I want to thank Clyde for his performance defending the Nay side in the debate.