Electoral Reform Debate - Oakvale v. Clyde
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:09:37 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)
  Electoral Reform Debate - Oakvale v. Clyde
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Electoral Reform Debate - Oakvale v. Clyde  (Read 3134 times)
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 27, 2015, 07:08:33 PM »


Lumine: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, This is former President Lumine, once again live from The Political Tracker and now bringing you a debate on one of the most contented issues of the moment: the Electoral Reform amendment. Several regions have started voting on this and we have seen some serious delays in the Midwest and Mideast, giving us enough time to host this debate and allow the leading members of the "Yes" and "No" campaigns to share their views to the citizens.

From the "Yes" side, it's Supreme Court Justice Oakvale. From the "No" side, Northeast Assemblyman Clyde1998, and, as our moderator, we have South Senator HagridOfTheDeep. The time is limited, but to the debate we go!
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 #1 on: April 27, 2015, 07:16:37 PM »

Better image:

Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,610
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2015, 07:24:19 PM »

I'd like to ask the public to refrain from commenting on this thread, I'll open a separate thread for said purpose.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2015, 08:40:41 PM »
« Edited: April 27, 2015, 09:48:51 PM by HagridOfTheDeep »



Senator HagridOfTheDeep introduces the topic of the night's debate.


Thank you, President Lumine and good evening from Louisiana State University. I’m HagridOfTheDeep, Independent Senator from the South, and I’ll be the moderator of tonight’s debate. The focus of our discussion will be on electoral reform and, specifically, the proposed districts system. This issue is of particular interest tonight as our country tragically faces the threat of rebellion from individuals demanding a greater say for the regions in Atlasian politics. While each of us condemns these actions, they provide a sobering backdrop to this debate. Our hearts are with all Atlasians feeling troubled or threatened by this turn of events.

At this moment, I would like to introduce Assemblyman Clyde1998 and Justice Oakvale. Gentlemen, good luck.

In December 2007, after years of electing half the senate from dynamic districts, the government abolished, by statute and amendment, this electoral system. What is your take on how this system played out in the past? What lessons can we learn from this experience as we debate reintroducing districts today?

Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2015, 07:01:35 AM »

Thank you Senator,

First of all, I do condemn the actions of the separatist rebels and I hope our Government can find a sensible solution to the problem quickly to avoid any major issues in the affected States.

On the electoral reform issue, I feel that the current electoral system has been beneficial to Atlasia's senate elections. The proposed amendment will end at-large elections - one of the biggest events on our electoral calendar; replacing them with districts is a step backwards. The restructuring in December 2007 brought an end to the system that’s currently being proposed. The at-large elections have given an opportunity for smaller parties to be elected – especially if they have support spread all over the country. The regional elections give citizens a local representative; the current system is a win-win situation for everyone.

While I don’t believe the current system is perfect, the current system has the proportional element that would be lost with the reforms that are being proposed. The senate should represent the people's views – these amendments to the current system risks consistent majority Senates, should the district boundaries be drawn a certain way. The amendment was proposed in an attempt to make the Senate elections more exciting, but a number of the regional elections have seen very few candidates running, and at least one recently had only one candidate on the ballot. There is no excitement in an election with only one candidate running.

I call on everyone to vote no on these electoral reforms.

Thank you.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2015, 10:33:24 AM »

Thank you, Assemblyman. I'll ask you to elaborate on a few of the points you raised once I hear from Justice Oakvale, but I'd like to circle back to my original question. Are there specific examples from the last time we tried this system of its failure?
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 #6 on: April 28, 2015, 12:15:39 PM »

Well first of all, thanks Lumine and Hagrid for hosting. It's great to be here. I'd also like to echo Cylde's concern for the victims of this terrorist action in the affected states.

There was, of course, a reason that we abolished district elections in the past. No system is perfect and I don't expect the new districts to be, either. There are however some very important differences between 2015 and 2007. First and most obviously, our population is an order of magnitude larger than it was a decade ago - there's little risk of the old problem of districts with 10 votes creating dull and predictable elections. But I'd turn the question around - at-large elections have failed to achieved their purpose, and thus we must experiment with a different approach.

When Jas, the Atlasian statesman, introduced his then-radical proposal to abolish district elections in 2007, he said that the at-large system would ensure -


In every meaningful sense, this has clearly failed. The only exciting at-large elections are the dramatic and heated single-seat specials, which the districts amendment would seek to replicate for all five seats.

More Choice and Influence for Voters

Again, this has sadly failed - compare this to the reformed districts amendment - in this system, parties could run far more candidates and give voters a far broader choice because concerns about vote splitting are greatly minimised. Furthermore, voters will have far more influence in this system due to the enhanced accountability of providing Senators with a distinct set of constituents that will be only marginally changed during redistricting.

A New Challenge for Atlasian Parties
I also believe this will be good for Atlasia’s party and caucus system. This new electoral method will present the parties and party strategists with new challenges beyond simply candidate selection. Parties will have to consider such issues as how many candidates to run (which could lead to a return of primaries) and whether or not to try and organise transfer pacts with like minded parties, etc. Independents (like myself) have nothing to fear from the system either, voters still will vote for candidates not parties.

And, yes, this has failed, too. Parties indeed have to consider how many candidates to run, have done the math, and we have ended up with stagnant elections that threaten to suck the fun out of the game. There's nothing particularly entertaining about watching a fleet of zombies dutifully turn out to put their [1] next to the candidate you could comfortably predict a month in advance, if not further.




I fear my friend got slightly away from the point of the question in his response, but I do want to quickly address this canard that at-large elections somehow give a boost to minor candidates - where on earth is the evidence of that?

I challenge the "No" side to produce a shred of support for this theory, because it seems to me that we've instead seen at-large elections become a tedious, dull grind where the results are virtually predetermined in advance except for unusual candidate strength or exception outside circumstances - one popular Labor Senator, his human surplus, a TPP Senator, and a Federalist/right-winger, with the final seat being occupied by either a DR or other brand of right-leaning Senator. As has been pointed out, the far and away best indicator of how a voter will vote is their partisan affiliation. How many times has Poirot tried to get elected now?
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2015, 12:20:59 PM »

Thank you, Justice Oakvale. Assemblyman Clyde1998, you now have the floor to address my follow-up question and rebut Oakvale's points.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2015, 01:30:19 PM »

Thank you Senator,

First of all to answer your question, one of the biggest issues with the district system was that a lot of the districts were very similar to the regional seats. This meant that some of the regional and districts elections were close to being carbon copies of each other. District 1, for example, usually only included voters who were registered in the Northeast states. I fear that the district boundaries could, once again, resemble the regional boundaries. This will made elections as predictable as the regional seats.

If voters voted down party lines, the current boundary proposals from the Senate suggest that Labor would have the most members in four districts and The People's Party would have the most in the other. If everyone voted down party lines, Labor would have a majority in the Senate, assuming they hold their three regional Senators. The People's Party would have two seats, while there would only be one other representative in the Senate - you Mr Senator. The Senate should represent the views of everyone in the country, not just the views of the parties that happen to have just enough support to win single-member seats.

To answer Justice Oakvale, the point that I've just made outlines how bad this could be for smaller parties. The two different types of election give different people and parties a chance of being elected - in different ways. Removing the at-large elections gives almost no possibility of the smaller parties being elected, due to the system being skewed against them. This would lead to even more uncompetitive elections than we have at present.

Voting is underway in the Northeast and Pacific; the Northeast vote is currently split in a way that shows that the voters from smaller parties know the risk of voting for this amendment. All but two of the Yes votes come from the biggest two parties in the region - Labor and The People's Party.

The President makes my point for me:
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.
If the larger parties are running more candidates, then it stands to reason that it’s more likely for candidates from the larger parties to be elected - as there is more candidates that could be elected.

Voters have less of a choice in candidates for regional elections - as smaller parties may decide not run, as they feel they have no chance of winning the seat.

The evidence for the current voting system helping smaller parties is clear – in the last ten Senates, only three parties have represented regional seats, compared to five parties in at-large seats. If districts had been used - then it would be likely that only three parties would've been elected to the Senate over that time. Smaller parties have only represented at-large seats recently.

On the issue of Poirot - he's a supporter of the no campaign, despite the amount of times he's attempted to be elected to the Senate. He's attempted to be elected via both the at-large and regional elections - so it hasn't been the at-large voting system preventing him from being elected, as Justice Oakvale seems to be implying. Poirot notes that at-large elections leads to candidates talking about themselves more, instead of attacking the policies of opponents. This has to be positive for our Senate elections - people talking about what they support, rather than just what they oppose. He also notes that parties will support spread across the country would be unable to win seats, as they wouldn't have enough support in any one region or district to win a single member seat.
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 #9 on: April 28, 2015, 02:25:49 PM »

Sorry Hagrid, I know we need to move on but I just want to come back on this for a minute.

If voters voted down party lines, the current boundary proposals from the Senate suggest that Labor would have the most members in four districts and The People's Party would have the most in the other. If everyone voted down party lines, Labor would have a majority in the Senate, assuming they hold their three regional Senators. The People's Party would have two seats, while there would only be one other representative in the Senate - you Mr Senator. The Senate should represent the views of everyone in the country, not just the views of the parties that happen to have just enough support to win single-member seats.

I'm not sure what the argument is here. As I mentioned, partisanship is already by far and away the most obvious indicator of how a citizen would vote, but in any event district Senate seats would represent their constituents far better than the nebulous at-large seats, where as we know Senators are effectively answerable only to their supporters.


To answer Justice Oakvale, the point that I've just made outlines how bad this could be for smaler parties. The two different types of election give different people and parties a chance of being elected - in different ways. Removing the at-large elections gives almost no possibility of the smaller parties being elected, due to the system being skewed against them. This would lead to even more uncompetitive elections than we have at present.

Again, this is based not on evidence but on some abstract theory of how at-large elections "could" work, not how they do. I'm primarily considered with the empirical evidence here.

Voting is underway in the Northeast and Pacific; the Northeast vote is currently split in a way that shows that the voters from smaller parties know the risk of voting for this amendment. All but two of the Yes votes come from the biggest two parties in the region - Labor and The People's Party.

The President makes my point for me:
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.
If the larger parties are running more candidates, then it stands to reason that it’s more likely for candidates from the larger parties to be elected - as there is more candidates that could be elected.

Voters have less of a choice in candidates for regional elections - as smaller parties may decide not run, as they feel they have no chance of winning the seat.

The evidence for the current voting system helping smaller parties is clear – in the last ten Senates, only three parties have represented regional seats, compared to five parties in at-large seats. If districts had been used - then it would be likely that only three parties would've been elected to the Senate over that time. Smaller parties have only represented at-large seats recently.

The fact that members of smaller parties and some of the flailing Federalists have bought into the nonsensical narrative being peddled by many (including, sadly, a member of my own party!) is a shame, but does not reflect the reality.

I don't understand how you'd think voters would possibly have less of a choice than last month's scintillating battle to see whether Cris or Blair would finish in fourth place or whatever.  Your data is also faulty - the last ten Senates only appear to have had five parties representing at-large seats because of (despised and disgraced) Napoleon's multiple party switches. He was elected as a Liberal candidate during the waning days of that party's prominence. In fact, the only data point which remotely supports that theory is Xahar's insane fluke win which largely achieved by massive Labor crossover voting to his troll campaign.

In the last ten Senates, regional seats have been held by Liberal, Labor, TPP, DR, Light (!), and an independent member, while at-large seats have been won (discounting party switching!) by Liberal, Labor, TPP DR, and one radical independent (Xahar's aforementioned fluke victory). The collapse of the DRs as a political force is also the culprit for that lack of representation at regional seat level more than the system.

It's also important to point out that this metric understates the value of contested elections - how many of those Senators in the at-large seats were predicted to win advance? I'd reckon the overwhelming majority.

On the issue of Poirot - he's a supporter of the no campaign, despite the amount of times he's attempted to be elected to the Senate. He's attempted to be elected via both the at-large and regional elections - so it hasn't been the at-large voting system preventing him from being elected, as Justice Oakvale seems to be implying. Poirot notes that at-large elections leads to candidates talking about themselves more, instead of attacking the policies of opponents. This has to be positive for our Senate elections - people talking about what they support, rather than just what they oppose. He also notes that parties will support spread across the country would be unable to win seats, as they wouldn't have enough support in any one region or district to win a single member seat.

Yes he is, and he's misguided. But quite contrary to the argument you're trying to make, as Bore pointed out, the closest Poirot has ever come to a winning a Senate has not been on his dozen tries for the at-large seat but in a regional seat, those supposed bastions of uncompetitiveness, when he ran against Bore in the Northeast.

I reject the premise that candidates talking about 'themselves' more is a positive thing. In fact what we've seen time and time again, and I speak from a position of someone who's been involved in Atlasia for well over a dozen at-large elections, not to mention the countless special elections, is that candidates end up screaming into the abyss. Outside of the debates, which, let's be honest, have minimal impact, candidates have little to no engagement with one another.
Compare this to some of the titanic regional clashes we've seen recently.

The whole reason that regional elections, special at-larges and Presidential campaigns are so exciting is because of the personsal competition between candidates. Removing that with multiple seat elections, as we have done, gives a perverse incentive for candidates to blandly homogenise themselves and speak only in platitudes. That doesn't always happen, thankfully, but it's common enough to make elections considerably dull.

What we're seeing from the "No" side in the last few days increasingly reminds me of an old Garret FitzGerald quote - "that's fine in practice, but will it work in theory?"
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2015, 02:39:56 PM »

Thank you Justice Oakvale and Assemblyman Clyde1998 for the lively back-and-forth. Assemblyman Clyde raised an interesting point that I'd like to come back to. The amendment we're currently debating would indeed eliminate at-large elections. What would this mean for regional representation at the federal level? Some have made the argument that we would now have two classes of regional seats. Do you buy into this interpretation? Would it be a positive development?
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 #11 on: April 28, 2015, 03:14:43 PM »

Well Hagrid, I'm afraid I don't buy that argument, and it seems that it'd being peddled by the conspiracy theorist opponents of this reform that are bizarrely convinced it's some kind of Trotskyist plot to ultimately abolish regional seats as irrelevant.

It's true that the regions would have a larger say in this class of seats than they currently do, not least because the position of Governor is given the added responsiblity of redistricting, but the law as set out was designed to ensure a significant difference between the regions and the districts. As Sen. Talleyrand noted

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The inevitable population changes of districts during redistricting also make it unlikely that the districts will simply be, as some fear, duplicate regional seats. I would not be supporting this amendment is I thought that was a serious risk. Additionally, the new importance of gubernatorial offices would inevitably lead to more interesting contests in those races - the ERA has a "trickle down" competitiveness bonus. I have faith in the Atlasian people and think they'd be outraged by any map that was mundanely identical or near-identical to the current regions, but I doubt five Governors of different parties and the RG could agree on such a map regardless.

Involving the regions more in federal elections is a good thing and I'm all for it. That's part of why I'm supporting the ERA, but this fear is unfounded.
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 #12 on: April 28, 2015, 03:17:43 PM »

If I could I'd also briefly point out that (another Atlasian statesman) Verin, who's skeptical of the Districts amendment and seems to be on Clyde's site, actually refutes the prior argument that at-large elections are in general more competitive than regional (or we must assume district) seats here -

It's a legitimate concern actually. The trouble is that the at-large seats don't work now that well either: we just had an election with six candidates for five seats. The large national parties tend to approach these elections in a very considered and conservative manner, and given that it happens to be in their best interest to do so...

I actually don't strongly disagree with that.  I myself did some analyses when bgwah once challenged me on that point, and, well, it showed that regional elections were more competitive than at-large ones.

Instead, Verin's fears revolve around the issue Hagrid raised in the question and that I've addressed above. I'll now yield to Clyde.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2015, 04:04:41 PM »

Everyone will have their own opinions on whether at-large elections are more competitive or not, regardless of whether they plan to vote yes or no - and everyone's entitled to their opinion. I'll get on to my views about the electoral system in a moment.

I'm not sure what the argument is here. As I mentioned, partisanship is already by far and away the most obvious indicator of how a citizen would vote, but in any event district Senate seats would represent their constituents far better than the nebulous at-large seats, where as we know Senators are effectively answerable only to their supporters.

My argument is that if partisanship is already the most obvious indicator of how a citizen would vote, then it’s clear that those districts will have Senators that are from the largest parties. Those senators may not be the first choice of over 60% of the voters – the at-large elections gives voters a candidate they chose as their first preference nearly all of the time.

Again, this is based not on evidence but on some abstract theory of how at-large elections "could" work, not how they do. I'm primarily considered with the empirical evidence here.

Well, as I said previously – the system isn't 100% perfect. The current system isn't my preferred electoral system, but I support it heavily when compared the proposed system. I would prefer to see an Additional Member System (aka MMP), which would make the Senate more proportional and both types of candidate being elected via the same election. The system works well in Germany and Scotland – and could be the solution to making elections more exciting, while increasing the proportionality of the Senate elections.

The proposed amendment puts power in the hands of the largest parties – which will make elections much less exciting, as we know which parties are likely to win each district and region - and potentially overall control of the Senate. This proposal doesn't improve our democracy, it will make it worse. It seems that this amendment will only create issues bigger than the issues the “aye” campaign claim it would solve.

If the electorate vote for amendment, there is no going back in the near future and we will be unable to move to a voting system that gives most of the voters representation in the Senate.

Why was it only the proposed system that was debate in Senate and not any others?

The fact that members of smaller parties and some of the flailing Federalists have bought into the nonsensical narrative being peddled by many (including, sadly, a member of my own party!) is a shame, but does not reflect the reality.

I don't understand how you'd think voters would possibly have less of a choice than last month's scintillating battle to see whether Cris or Blair would finish in fourth place or whatever.  Your data is also faulty - the last ten Senates only appear to have had five parties representing at-large seats because of (despised and disgraced) Napoleon's multiple party switches. He was elected as a Liberal candidate during the waning days of that party's prominence. In fact, the only data point which remotely supports that theory is Xahar's insane fluke win which largely achieved by massive Labor crossover voting to his troll campaign.

In the last ten Senates, regional seats have been held by Liberal, Labor, TPP, DR, Light (!), and an independent member, while at-large seats have been won (discounting party switching!) by Liberal, Labor, TPP DR, and one radical independent (Xahar's aforementioned fluke victory). The collapse of the DRs as a political force is also the culprit for that lack of representation at regional seat level more than the system.

It's also important to point out that this metric understates the value of contested elections - how many of those Senators in the at-large seats were predicted to win advance? I'd reckon the overwhelming majority.

I was mainly referring to the party that the Senator belonged to at the time of their election, and I didn’t take switching parties mid-way through the Senate term into account. Regardless of this, however, when you launched your campaign you stated that there would be “more opportunities for new players” with districts. I don’t see how this can be – the previous ten Senates (between the 57th to 66th Senates) has seen eleven people serving as regional Senators, while double that have been served as at-large Senators. The average term length for a regional Senator is 1.2 terms longer than at-large Senators. This means that newer candidates have more chance of being elected via the at-large elections.

Yes he is, and he's misguided. But quite contrary to the argument you're trying to make, as Bore pointed out, the closest Poirot has ever come to a winning a Senate has not been on his dozen tries for the at-large seat but in a regional seat, those supposed bastions of uncompetitiveness, when he ran against Bore in the Northeast.

In the election you are referring to, Poirot finished around 20% of the vote behind Bore – he’s come closer than 20% away from being elected in at-large elections.

Well Hagrid, I'm afraid I don't buy that argument, and it seems that it'd being peddled by the conspiracy theorist opponents of this reform that are bizarrely convinced it's some kind of Trotskyist plot to ultimately abolish regional seats as irrelevant.

It's true that the regions would have a larger say in this class of seats than they currently do, not least because the position of Governor is given the added responsiblity of redistricting, but the law as set out was designed to ensure a significant difference between the regions and the districts. As Sen. Talleyrand noted

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Firstly, I'm not claiming that this will see an end to regional seat, but I am noting that regional seats will become less important, as well effectively have two tiers of regional seats.

Not mimicking the regions was the goal of the districts last time, but the districts still managed this often. The current proposal sees the five Governors of the Regions and the Secretary of Federal Elections decide the boundaries. If that fails, then the partisan Registrar General draws them. What is there to stop the RG from drawing the boundaries in a way that could mimic the regions or hand an advantage to their party of choice?

There is nothing in the amendment to prevent this from happening.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2015, 05:08:26 PM »

Will you also be answering my question, Assemblyman? Either way, I think it's interesting that you bring up a longer average term length among regional senators as a negative. Why do you see it this way? Perhaps Justice Oakvale would like to speak on this too?
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2015, 05:44:47 PM »

Will you also be answering my question, Assemblyman? Either way, I think it's interesting that you bring up a longer average term length among regional senators as a negative. Why do you see it this way? Perhaps Justice Oakvale would like to speak on this too?

I shall answer it now:

What would this mean for regional representation at the federal level? Some have made the argument that we would now have two classes of regional seats. Do you buy into this interpretation? Would it be a positive development?

In terms of increasing Governor involvement in the Senate, it's a step forward - however I fear that having partisan Governor's drawing the boundaries could lead to the districts benefiting one or two parties. The Secretary of Federal Elections should be able to veto any proposal that leads to one party having an ultra safe district.

I feel that the average voter won't see the affects of the changes, and would mean that regional representation for most people won't change.

I think districts, if they are ever implemented, should replace regions instead of the at-large elections - if we're worried about different regions having different electorate sizes - as I don't believe two very similar types of election will bring the excitement that Senate elections have been calling out for.

On the issue of two classes of regional seats, I believe that the amendment does produce this. The biggest issue is a lack of proportionality - some people will have no-one to represent their interests that are accountable to them, as both regional and district seats that cover their state may be held by the same party.

Involving the regions at federal level is important, but it has to be implemented correctly for it to be beneficial.

I think it's interesting that you bring up a longer average term length among regional senators as a negative. Why do you see it this way?
The "aye" campaign point four is "More opportunities for new players". There's more opportunity for new players in the at-large elections, as at-large Senators generally have a shorter stay in the Senate - the number of people who are elected as an at-large Senator is double that of regional Senators because of this.

I brought those figures up, as the district elections would be run via the same voting system as regional elections, and history has shown that in single-winner elections the incumbent tends to do better than newcomers, so newer players have less of a look in when compared to at-large elections.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2015, 12:22:47 PM »

Thank you, Clyde. I was hoping Justice Oakvale could also discuss the idea of senate turnover in the regional seats, but since he hasn't jumped on it, I'll move on. Apologies also for my delay here. My grandpa decided the last two days of class would be a good time to have a medical emergency.

Both of you have talked about competitiveness and partisanship as reasons for and against the districts proposal. I'd like to zero in on the actual process of drawing and negotiating the district boundaries. Some commentators have discussed the possibility of a "Labor conspiracy," some have said the process will be good for regional involvement, some are untrustworthy of the governors, and some see gerrymandering as a big negative. What are your thoughts on how the redistricting process would influence (and be influenced by) the partisan landscape of our country?
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2015, 01:31:25 PM »

Thank you, Clyde. I was hoping Justice Oakvale could also discuss the idea of senate turnover in the regional seats, but since he hasn't jumped on it, I'll move on. Apologies also for my delay here. My grandpa decided the last two days of class would be a good time to have a medical emergency.

Both of you have talked about competitiveness and partisanship as reasons for and against the districts proposal. I'd like to zero in on the actual process of drawing and negotiating the district boundaries. Some commentators have discussed the possibility of a "Labor conspiracy," some have said the process will be good for regional involvement, some are untrustworthy of the governors, and some see gerrymandering as a big negative. What are your thoughts on how the redistricting process would influence (and be influenced by) the partisan landscape of our country?
No issues Senator - personal issues must take priority over this debate.

I fear that the proposal could spell an end to multi-party politics in certain districts and regions. It's very plausible that the Governors could agree to draw the boundaries in a way that would benefit their partisan views - to ensure safe election for their parties candidates in district Senate races. Smaller parties could decide not to run, as they feel that they have no chance of winning the district - similar to the regional election, where some won't run in that they have little to no chance in. However, these parties still have a chance in the at-large elections, which we use at present.

The Senate district proposal shows how easily the boundaries can benefit the largest parties. The two biggest parties in the Senate are Labor and The People's Party - and they're the only two parties who look like they could win district seats on the current proposal. Labor are the largest party in four districts, with The People's Party the largest in the other. Two of the districts give Labor an almost unassailable position, with the others still stacked heavily in their, or The People's Party's, favour.

Additionally, assuming my list of Governors is correct, The People's Party have three Governors and Labor have two. Why would these Governors change the districts in a way that would damage their parties representation in the Senate? I would predict that these Governors would wish to make as little changes as possible to the boundaries, to ensure that their party doesn't lose a district.

I'd think that partisan concerns would come first for Governors, before an exciting, close district. The 53% of people, affiliated to a party, who are members of Labor and The People's Party would have nearly all of the Senate seats. The other 47% will be left with little or no representation. I feel that the amendment is an attempt of a bi-partisan power-grab.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 02, 2015, 11:02:46 AM »

Justice Oakvale?
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 #19 on: May 02, 2015, 11:30:32 AM »

Again we see this canard that district elections will harm smaller parties or independents despite the empirical evidence showing that at-large elections are far more damaging to small parties than our closet comparison to a districts system - the regional elections. It's objectively untrue and I'm not clear as to why the No campaign continues to insist upon it despite it being debunked comprehensively.

It also does the Governors a disservice to suggest that'd favour craven partisan tactics over competitive elections, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Governors in this game support the proposal precisely because of its capacity for close elections. That said, the possibility of unrepresentative gerrymanders serves only to add greater importance to the office of Governor and create competition for the position - as I've said before, one of the great things about this amendment is the resulting "trickle down" of increased activity to the regional level.

Would partisan concerns play a role in redistricting? Perhaps, sure. But let me be clear on this point - it's not the Constitution's job to babysit parties who can't get it together enough to compete for a regional election. If the Federalists or another smaller party are so concerned about redistricting they should actually try and win a gubernatorial election instead of conceding race after race. This would obviously have huge benefits for activity.

In short, while I think partisan makeup could theoretically, yes, have some impact on the districting process, I don't believe for a second that this either means uncompetitive elections or that "smaller parties" wouldn't have a chance (again with the false implication that they currently do in the broken at-large system). If people are worried about it there are gubernatorial elections regularly. Use your vote. Any governor who passes a gerrymander can presumably be ejected from office for such cynicism.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 02, 2015, 03:11:12 PM »

Thank you. I now have a somewhat obscure question, but I'm wondering if both of you could acknowledge the points from the other side of the debate that you believe are most compelling. Oakvale, is there any detail about the proposal that you would change or that worries you? Clyde, is there anything you like about this idea? Could either of you imagine a compromise amendment? Would you support a changed amendment?
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 02, 2015, 03:49:40 PM »

Thank you. I now have a somewhat obscure question, but I'm wondering if both of you could acknowledge the points from the other side of the debate that you believe are most compelling. Oakvale, is there any detail about the proposal that you would change or that worries you? Clyde, is there anything you like about this idea? Could either of you imagine a compromise amendment? Would you support a changed amendment?
Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to changing the voting system - but I am opposed to the current proposal. I think the one thing in the current proposal, if it is passed, I would like is that each districts would have roughly the same electorate size - where our current regions do vary in size by up to around twenty voters.

In the event of a no vote, however, I would support a national forum on the issue - to help negotiations to find a voting system that a majority of people would support. I recognise that a no vote is not the end of the story. I certainly can see a situation where we could have a compromise amendment, following a no vote.

The system that I would, personally, support a move to is the Mixed Member Proportional system - which would give a chance for the smaller parties to be elected to the Senate. This would mean that no one party would have a majority in the Senate, without a majority of the national vote.

We could still have regional, or district, seats - but a national list would ensure that smaller parties aren't forced out of Senate races.

Additionally, this would reduce my concerns with Governors deciding the district boundaries, should districts be used over regions, as the national list would fix the unfairness of some district boundaries - should they be gerrymandered in such a way to give the largest party in that district a safe seat.

I understand that there could be a lot of opposition to removing regional seats, so we could expand the Senate to fifteen people - with five regional seats, three district seats and seven at-large list seats, for example. There would be a bit of everything for everyone. It'll give exciting regional and district elections - knowing that the Senate will still be proportional to what the voters want.

I've given a couple of example systems that we could use with MMP, but there are a number of possibilities with the MMP or another system and I won't tie myself down to a single proposal without having a negotiation period with the voters, the Senators and the Aye campaign.

If you don't agree with the current proposal, but want change to the system - you can still vote no. A no vote doesn't mean no change. It just means no thanks to the proposed system.
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 #22 on: May 03, 2015, 03:12:45 PM »

Frankly, it'd be difficult for me to say anything positive about the current system. For all my half-decade and counting of experience in Atlasia at-large elections have been dreary, predictable affairs with the only exception being the aforementioned single seat by-elections, where we occasionally have a real race and some excitement. That's the kind of thing those us in favour of the ERA hope to replicate across the country.

That said, I do respect Clyde and others' views on this, I have no doubt that their concerns about misrepresentation are genuine, although I think they're misplaced. I do slightly despair that those of us in favour of the proposal have had our motives repeatedly impugned. I'm not referring to Clyde here, who's been nothing but honourable, but there are many determined to paint this is a swivel-eyed leftist plot, which is patently absurd. I suppose the most compelling point that the No side raise against the ERA is the concern about a lopsidedly partisan delegation of Governors skewing the map in favour of one party to the detriment of interesting elections. As I've said, though, I think that situation is highly unlikely, not only because of the inevitable political backlash but because the newly crucial role of Governors will mean more competitive elections for those positions and thus reduce the likelihood of a one-party delegation massively.

One detail I would change about the ERA if I was a Senator would be to introduce more of a role for regional legislatures, adding to the 'trickle down' activity effect I'm so excited about. However, I think there's still the possibility that legislatures could naturally involve themselves in the redistricting process, adding a great importance to those offices as well as that of Governor.

I should also note that the idea of party list voting has been mentioned before and was, ironically, and correctly, decried as the ultimate Labor Party power grab, and promptly vanished in the wake of overwhelming public opposition. I can't imagine a less interesting electoral system - it would make at-large elections look positively wonderful - and would oppose any move to introduce such a mechanism in the stead of at-large or district elections.

My friend here says that a "no" vote doesn't mean no chance, but that is of course wrong. When ambitious reforms such as this are rejected, they tend to stay dead because politicians are naturally wary of attempting to raise the issue again. If the ERA is rejected this month I fully expect at-large elections to remain in place for another several years before we seriously get the opportunity to look at the situation again. That's why I'm so committed to working for this amendment. There's not going to be a second chance.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 04, 2015, 07:51:05 PM »

Do any of you have any questions for each other?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.076 seconds with 11 queries.