Do you support Atlasia adopting a bicameral legislature?

[Adam Griffin]

So the competative regions do well and those that are one sided are not? Shocker.

That's a funny way of looking at it.

The dynamics in the Pacific suggest it is very competitive, if the Right could get its sh**t together.

The Midwest has had plenty of competitive elections in recent months (Lebron's recall, most of TNF's elections, Governor's election with Gass, and on and on and on).

The South and the Mideast aren't really competitive in the sense that the "oppositions" there are a awkward mixture of competing factions that can only successfully beat the ruling party if they vote against the leaders instead of voting for themselves.

The Northeast is the only truly competitive region outside of hypotheticals and in all three major attributes (partisan, ideological and personality-based).

Adam, the Pacific is cursed. The first time I tried to "get the right's sh**t together in the region", we got Hamilton in the game who proceeded to pull every right winger out and move them to the NE.

Competative as in, will actually vote them out of office. Those 51-49 races look good on paper, but if they always turn out the same way, the effect isn't the same.

I make that joke all the time, too, but in reality, nothing is "cursed" and superstition is silly. The Pacific seems to naturally have a lower population profile due to the natural geographic composition of people who join the forum (again, another huge flaw of the initial region boundary creation) and as such, needs to be combined with other states in a consolidation effort to ensure a larger baseline population. That's the only "curse" it has - ditto for the Midwest.

Whenever people "invade" it, that is only a temporary solution and will not naturally hold. I wholly maintain that when Labor/NM-AM invaded the Pacific and tried to destroy it, it was the best thing for the region in years. The Labor leadership there under Tyrion and others produced many months of consistently active, thoughtful and engaging legislative affairs and competitive elections. No modern party or movement (since 2012, because that's all I can personally vouch for) has generated as strong of a Pacific climate before or since. It's a shame that some forces sought to undermine Labor and then take over the Pacific, only to revert it to its genuinely inactive and crappy self by making it non-competitive and neglecting it.

[Adam Griffin]

Another interesting element when assessing regions: who the hell decided that having such widely disparate real-life population compositions was a good idea? These numbers don't seem to be proportionate in terms of who actually joins the forum (more people join from the Northeast, fewer people from the Pacific, etc), but still...

In Millions:

South   93.058
Mideast   72.972
Pacific    63.289
Northeast   56.210
Midwest   24.846

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So the competative regions do well and those that are one sided are not? Shocker.

That's a funny way of looking at it.

The dynamics in the Pacific suggest it is very competitive, if the Right could get its sh**t together.

The Midwest has had plenty of competitive elections in recent months (Lebron's recall, most of TNF's elections, Governor's election with Gass, and on and on and on).

The South and the Mideast aren't really competitive in the sense that the "oppositions" there are a awkward mixture of competing factions that can only successfully beat the ruling party if they vote against the leaders instead of voting for themselves.

The Northeast is the only truly competitive region outside of hypotheticals and in all three major attributes (partisan, ideological and personality-based).

Adam, the Pacific is cursed. The first time I tried to "get the right's sh**t together in the region", we got Hamilton in the game who proceeded to pull every right winger out and move them to the NE.

Competative as in, will actually vote them out of office. Those 51-49 races look good on paper, but if they always turn out the same way, the effect isn't the same.

I make that joke all the time, too, but in reality, nothing is "cursed" and superstition is silly. The Pacific seems to naturally have a lower population profile due to the real-life states that comprise it (again, another huge flaw of the initial region boundary creation) and as such, needs to be combined with other states in a consolidation effort to ensure a larger baseline population. That's the only "curse" it has - ditto for the Midwest.

Whenever people "invade" it, that is only a temporary solution and will not naturally hold. I wholly maintain that when Labor/NM-AM invaded the Pacific and tried to destroy it, it was the best thing for the region in years. The Labor leadership there under Tyrion and others produced many months of consistently active, thoughtful and engaging legislative affairs and competitive elections. No modern party or movement (since 2012, because that's all I can personally vouch for) has generated as strong of a Pacific climate before or since. It's a shame that some forces sought to undermine Labor and then take over the Pacific, only to revert it to its genuinely inactive and crappy self by making it non-competitive and neglecting it.

It has California. You would think the largest state would produce the equivalent number of people as New York or Texas has for the game.

Oh you mean the crime of 2013. Yea, we never gonna see eye to eye on that. OF course the activity afterwards indeed, but I still don't see why if enough power could be accrued to crash it, such could have been directed ie Tyrion towards recovery from the beginning. Nay, the objective of those "events" was more national in scope and ironically did more to rally conservative opposition and stoke fears of anti-regionalism then anything else, just as the push for consolidation was revving up.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Another interesting element when assessing regions: who the hell decided that having such widely disparate real-life population compositions was a good idea? These numbers don't seem to be proportionate in terms of who actually joins the forum (more people join from the Northeast, fewer people from the Pacific, etc), but still...

In Millions:

South   93.058
Mideast   72.972
Pacific    63.289
Northeast   56.210
Midwest   24.846

Yes, but if that mattered, NE would be near the bottom not the top on your previous post. And CA should be sustaining the Pacific.

To some extent, yes, the difference is in who joins, but also the success of machines or competativeness would mean the more likelihood of getting someone into the Pacific who otherwise would skip it, boosting its population and so forth.

[Adam Griffin]

Yes, I misspoke and edited my statements after you began replying. The natural forum population and the organic tendency of who joins and from where is the problem.

Nevertheless, a way to at least partially solve this issue/take it into account perhaps is to ensure that each region has as many states as possible with larger populations. I think this might be a key to it, although I can see why some might argue that it has no bearing - perhaps some underlying sociology mechanism at work here? Look at the South, the Mideast and the Northeast: all of them have multiple states with sizable real-life populations. The Midwest and the Pacific have one or zero states with sizable populations.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, I misspoke and edited my statements after you began replying. The natural forum population and the organic tendency of who joins and from where is the problem.

Nevertheless, a way to at least partially solve this issue/take it into account perhaps is to ensure that each region has as many states as possible with larger populations. I think this might be a key to it, although I can see why some might argue that it has no bearing - perhaps some underlying sociology mechanism at work here? Look at the South, the Mideast and the Northeast: all of them have multiple states with sizable real-life populations. The Midwest and the Pacific have one or zero states with sizable populations.

The Pacific does have the largest state and two medium sized states, plus three fast growing smaller states also.

[Adam Griffin]

Yes, I misspoke and edited my statements after you began replying. The natural forum population and the organic tendency of who joins and from where is the problem.

Nevertheless, a way to at least partially solve this issue/take it into account perhaps is to ensure that each region has as many states as possible with larger populations. I think this might be a key to it, although I can see why some might argue that it has no bearing - perhaps some underlying sociology mechanism at work here? Look at the South, the Mideast and the Northeast: all of them have multiple states with sizable real-life populations. The Midwest and the Pacific have one or zero states with sizable populations.

The Pacific does have the largest state and two medium sized states, plus three fast growing smaller states also.

Meh, "sizable" in my book means near or more 10 million people. The South has 4. The Northeast has 3. The Mideast has 4. The Pacific has 1 and the Midwest has 0.

At any rate, I'm not here to argue over technicalities and tangents forever and ever. There's a structural problem with the way the game's regions are designed and I and many others spent over a year hashing out the finer details in multiple areas on how to solve that. All of these efforts involved dozens of people across partisan lines. We crowdsourced the ideal map with the maximum chance of being amenable to all involved. We spent a combined total of 33 pages of Senate debate crafting two separate amendments that would pave the way for all of this to be fixed and for the game to enjoy a truly unique and new form of gameplay (unlike the whole district stuff). At the end of the day, the majority of people who supported it couldn't be bothered to come out and actually support it in the booth.

There was arguably more effort put into this proposed series of reforms and molding public opinion of it than any other attempt at game reform in the history of the game. This is why I'm resistant to people suddenly wanting to debate all of this stuff over again, especially considering most of them were here when this was done before and either chose not to be involved or fought it. Therefore, I really don't care about their opinions. There are already solutions available and on the books that can be enacted if any of this is to become something.

There's no need to come up with new ways in which to consolidate, draw maps, add a second chamber that is unsustainable, dredge up the tired concept of districts or anything else, because it's nothing more than feel-good nonsense for people who want to accomplish something they can put their own names on rather than substantive or pragmatic progress - especially when most of that doesn't address the most structural problem in the game itself. And of course on principle and because I'm jaded, you know what I'll attempt to do if any of that nonsense gains any traction.

Want reform? Then pick up the banner of the most substantive effort to bring it to the game, and run with it.

[bore]

Over the years my opinion on consolidation has become more nuanced. I still support it in theory, but now I think that the plan should, as far as possible, preserve existing regions, as their history is important. So, for instance, I think a 4 region map should probably just be a merger with the midwest and the pacific, or the pacific split between the midwest and the south, while a 3 region one should try and preserve three regions in their entirety, and then split most of the broken up regions into one other one.

That said, the point is largely moot because FRTA will never pass.

[Simfan34]

I have long supported a four-region reform.

[Senator Cris]

Yes. I didn't vote in the poll, but I support a bicameral legislature.

I launched this proposal in August 2014 and I'm ready to launch it again.

The current situation:

Senate --> 10
Cabinet --> 8
Court --> 3
Regions --> 32

Total --> 53

My plan provides:
- the reduction of the Senate members from 10 to 6 (5 elected by the regions + 1 At-Large)
- the creation of an House of Representatives of 11 members (elected At-Large or by the districts)
- the reduction of the number of regional Office Holders. The change of the number of regional Office Holders should be competence of the regions.

On the last point:
The Midwest should continue to have 5 Office Holders (Governor, Archduke and 3 Representatives).
The Pacific should continue to have 5 Office Holders (Governor, Justice and 3 Representatives).
The South should have 5 Office Holders instead of current 7 (Emperor, Judicial and 3 Legislators).
The Northeast should have 6 Office Holders instead of current 8 (Governor, Lieutenant, CJO and 3 Representatives).
The Mideast should have 6 Office Holders instead of current 7 (Governor, Lieutenant, SCJ and 3 members of the Assembly).

So...

Senate --> 6
House --> 11
Cabinet --> 8
Court --> 3
Regions --> 26

TOT --> 54

So, the difference would be of only 1 office holder.
This is only an idea and there are sticking points as the point of the number of regional Office Holders. I'd like to hear your opinions, thoughts.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Well, my idea. (I do support bicameralism)

REGIONS
The top two regions (Mideast, Northeast as of now) should have 5 seats each.
The third region with the highest population (Midwest as now) should have 4 seats each.
Other regions (Pacific as of now), should have 3 seats.

Governors & Lieutenants/CJOs will be the same as of now.


SENATE
(same as Cris' idea) = 6 seats


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
3 at-large + 5 from the regions (1 each) = 8 seats

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Of course I'm a supporter of a bicameral system. Cris has a great idea on the federal scale and RGN on the regions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I like both proposals, though I do question the putting of like representation in both chambers and would prefer for instance the Senate be all regional in bicameral system and a House be composed of either a singular or multiple forms of proportional representation covering the whole nation.

As pro-region as I am, I am leary of regions dominating both branches of a legislature for the same reason I would be learly of them being dominated in both branches. The people deserve a co-equal voice to the regions in the legislative branch.

[Adam Griffin]

I like both proposals, though I do question the putting of like representation in both chambers and would prefer for instance the Senate be all regional in bicameral system and a House be composed of either a singular or multiple forms of proportional representation covering the whole nation.

As pro-region as I am, I am leary of regions dominating both branches of a legislature for the same reason I would be learly of them being dominated in both branches. The people deserve a co-equal voice to the regions in the legislative branch.

Which is why you must support the Bicameral Birthing Amendment for a Senate of the Regions and a House at-large (and obviously that means supporting Fix the Regions Amendment/CARCA)!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Or just cut the regional seats from the House and the At-Large seat from the senate in the Cris/RGN proposal.

I admire your persistance though Adam.

And I actually did vote for the Bicameral Birthing Admendment. FTR might someday pass and it provided a sound structure, so I considered it the responsible course to take. I wish we had the numbers to sustain all five regions and a large house with an all Regional ten member Senate.

In the absence of that, bicameralism is still achievable at much smaller numbers for both chambers, absent consolidation. (Like 5 and 5-8).

[Oakvale]

My basic view on all this is that if we're not going to change the current system to something that's both a significant reform while also being integrated into the historic arrangement of the game (districts) then we might as well start entirely anew with a fully-fledged parliamentary system instead of a piecemeal hybrid effort.