Do you support Atlasia adopting a bicameral legislature?

[Hatman 🍁]

Alright, so the overwhelming majority of you support electoral reform.

The next question is, do you support introducing a House of Representatives or the equivalent?

[The Other Castro]

Nah

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I prefeer adopting the German model:

1. Lower house being elected popularly, ideally at large.
2. Upper house modeled on the Bundesrat with representatives of regional governments sitting there (Governors rotating as chairs). This chamber would be charged specifically with regional issues.

Otherwise, I'd be fine with the lower house, elected at large and the upper one representing either regions or districts (if former, they senators should be selected by legislatures).

[free my dawg]

No.

[Blair]

The senate has enough problems getting stuff done quickly-a second house wouldn't help

[Boston Bread]

No. Atlasian election cycles come by extremely fast so a second house would slow things down to a crawl.

[TDAS04]

Nope.  It would slow the process down too much. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Depending how you designed the rules, The house could move faster than the Senate. This is certainly possible under the People's House envisoned in the Duke Plan.

As I would see it, the House would pass stuff quicker and the Senate would be the ones to sift through and improve that at about the current pace. And you could have a fast track for emergency stuff with both houses proceeding simultaneously.

Generally speaking though, concerns about effficiency have always been what has hindered a bicameral system in this game. I think those problems could be overcome. When polled in 2013, Duke's proposal (for just the bicameralism portion) had plurality support. It seems opinion has shifted negatively since then.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Depending how you designed the rules, The house could move faster than the Senate. This is certainly possible under the People's House envisoned in the Duke Plan.

As I would see it, the House would pass stuff quicker and the Senate would be the ones to sift through and improve that at about the current pace. And you could have a fast track for emergency stuff with both houses proceeding simultaneously.

Generally speaking though, concerns about effficiency have always been what has hindered a bicameral system in this game. I think those problems could be overcome. When polled in 2013, Duke's proposal (for just the bicameralism portion) had plurality support. It seems opinion has shifted negatively since then.

I think that's also a better idea.

[/]

I prefeer adopting the German model:

1. Lower house being elected popularly, ideally at large.
2. Upper house modeled on the Bundesrat with representatives of regional governments sitting there (Governors rotating as chairs). This chamber would be charged specifically with regional issues.

Otherwise, I'd be fine with the lower house, elected at large and the upper one representing either regions or districts (if former, they senators should be selected by legislatures).

This sounds cool!

[free my dawg]

Depending how you designed the rules, The house could move faster than the Senate. This is certainly possible under the People's House envisoned in the Duke Plan.

As I would see it, the House would pass stuff quicker and the Senate would be the ones to sift through and improve that at about the current pace. And you could have a fast track for emergency stuff with both houses proceeding simultaneously.

Generally speaking though, concerns about effficiency have always been what has hindered a bicameral system in this game. I think those problems could be overcome. When polled in 2013, Duke's proposal (for just the bicameralism portion) had plurality support. It seems opinion has shifted negatively since then.

I'd like a bit of clarification regarding "the current pace". Does this apply to the Senate or both houses?

[Adam Griffin]

Throughout 2013-2014, I probably wrote 20,000 words on this board about the benefits of consolidation and bicameralism, explaining why the current system was bad for the game, and on and on and on...

Those posts are scattered all over the place and it's a pain for me to try and relocate them, so I'll just say this: the only way you can have bicameralism is if you reduce the number of regions. If you're not on board with doing that, then don't consider bicameralism. You otherwise will have too many offices for the game to work properly. Even now, with a historically higher-than-average number of players, filling all of the offices in a competitive fashion throughout the game is practically impossible.

Fix the Regions Amendment was pushed because it was a solution to the chronic problem of always having at least one (sometimes, two or three) inactive or barely existing regions. One of the benefits for the game at-large from its adoption was that it would have reduced the number of elected/judicial offices in-game from around 52 to 36. That figure came from there being (estimated) 6 fewer regional legislative positions, 2 fewer Governors, 2 fewer Lieutenant Governors, 2 fewer CJOs and 4 fewer Senators. In the end, this change would have eliminated 16 positions.

One of the final haggling points in the FTRA (if I recall correctly) was that the Senate would be reduced to a 6-member body; 3 regional Senators and 3 at-large Senators. This paved the way for bicameralism and made it possible to expand the federal legislative chamber. I believe that the Bicameral Birthing Amendment added a House with 11 members, alongside the 6-member Senate. This would ultimately produce a net reduction of 5 elected positions across the country.

In fact, BBA was built with a mechanism that stated it would not go into effect until FTRA was ratified, because otherwise, the game would swell with an even larger number of offices that would be unsustainable.

Was it as large of a reduction as I would have liked to see? No, but it would have addressed the primary problem (a game that, when divided into 5 different sections, cannot adequately field competitive atmospheres in all jurisdictions). From there, activity would have been more evenly distributed - particularly at the regional level - and what we would have ended up with is a new system of sorts at both the regional and federal levels to increase interest.

We tried, Duke.

Of course, all of this can be revived by passing both FTRA and BBA in 2 of the regions where each failed.

[free my dawg]

I would like to reaffirm my staunch and firm opposition to the Fix the Regions Amendment and the Bicameral Birthing Amendment. Quite frankly, the policy to reduce the regions from five to three comes from an archaic system that has already been fixed. Speaker Turkisblau and Governor Simfan have revived the Pacific, Flo has revived the South, and Governor TDAS made the Mideast active once again (as I have faith that windjammer will if he wins). It's also worth noting that Senator TNF has shown his commitment to Atlasia, and that I also have faith in him that the Midwest will be more active under his leadership. Instead of one region without activity problems, we have three, with two regions likely to have active governors by June.

After all, why solve the problems of May and June with a plan from last August and September?

[Adam Griffin]

I would like to reaffirm my staunch and firm opposition to the Fix the Regions Amendment and the Bicameral Birthing Amendment. Quite frankly, the policy to reduce the regions from five to three comes from an archaic system that has already been fixed. Speaker Turkisblau and Governor Simfan have revived the Pacific, Flo has revived the South, and Governor TDAS made the Mideast active once again (as I have faith that windjammer will if he wins). It's also worth noting that Senator TNF has shown his commitment to Atlasia, and that I also have faith in him that the Midwest will be more active under his leadership. Instead of one region without activity problems, we have three, with two regions likely to have active governors by June.

After all, why solve the problems of May and June with a plan from last August and September?

With all due respect, this is just horribly wrong. The fact is that the problem with activity and competition is just as much of a problem now as it was before and will be just as much of a problem in the future, and an objective solution to the problem is always going to be valid because the problem itself is structural. Nobody could have anticipated the structural issues in the beginning with crafting five separate regions, yet it has remained unfixed for years. Let's break the regions down one-by-one with the actual stats, since they were referenced:

Pacific: FAILING

Turkisblau is essentially talking to himself. The Governor hasn't engaged with legislation or on the Regional Governments board since March 19th (excluding his court case Pacific v. Poirot). There have been a grand total of two bills introduced in the Pacific Council since the beginning of April: Reinstatement of the Pacific Protection of Commerce in Arms Act & The Pacific Organ Donation Act of 2015. Cranberry (not a Councilor) is the only other person besides Turkisblau to say a word about them. Before these, the last bill to pass/fail the Council passed on April 2. Elections are never competitive and even if they are, it is in name only, as Councillors are apt to never swear in or show up once they have.

MIDWEST: STRUGGLING

Very low levels of engagement in this region, but it blows the Pacific out of the water, for at least others are actually speaking. There have been three bills introduced in the Althing since the beginning of April: the Je Suis Charlie Day Resolution, the Fifth Most Serene Republic of the Midwest Constitution, & the Heating Fuel Reduction Bill. Speaker Dereich, Governor Gass and Representative Fuzzybigfoot are essentially the only three individuals engaging on legislation and amendments at this point. Fielding more candidates for Althing than there are seats is rare.

SOUTH: STABLE

Definitely doing better than either the Midwest or the Pacific, the South seems stable for the time being. There have been six pieces of legislation/regional amendments introduced since the beginning of April (I don't include federal amendments voted on by the Legislature as part of this measurement, because that's not really indicative of regional activity). There have been 73 replies to all bills; 64 non-procedural replies. 60% of all non-procedural engagement came from PiT and Duke (22 replies from PiT, 17 from Duke). It just had a competitive election and 2/3 seats' worth of turnover, so we'll see what happens in the future.

MIDEAST: STABLE

The Mideast is the largest region, so it should be the most prosperous. However, I don't believe that is the case - maybe the 2nd most prosperous, but it has structural issues. The Governor is constantly coming and going, which can make legislative processes more difficult depending on the outcome. There have been five pieces of legislation introduced since the beginning of April. There have been 184 replies to all bills; a healthy mixture of contributions from all elected representatives. Again, weighing the issue with inactivity in the executive branch here against the concentration of contributions in the South makes it hard to say which region is better off.

NORTHEAST: THRIVING

Since the overall purpose was to outline what's wrong, I'm not going to write much here about the Northeast. It is both large enough and naturally competitive enough - with a variety of different parties and ideologies having roughly equal presences and no one possessing a majority - that the best rises to the top. By my quick count, 23 pieces of legislation have come to the floor since the beginning of April. Debate by and large is healthily spread across representatives.


So yes, as almost always, we have three regions that are either doing well or are sufficiently healthy enough to be considered successes, and two other regions that are floundering. The current environment is actually a pretty good (but still average) result: just as often, we have only two stable or thriving regions with three struggling or failing. The names of the regions considered healthy or not may and do change over time, but the overall balance is always present: three decent regions and two terrible ones. The only long-term and permanent solution to guarantee the health of all regions is to recognize this reality and reduce their presence to three.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

We still need regional reduction + bicameralism, but I am now convinced it'll never happen, which means i will cry as long as I can.

[Flake]

Bicameralism is necessary for all of our regions to thrive, and I'm not entirely sure why there's a large bloc opposed to a three region solution.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Can we decide the number of seats by population?

[free my dawg]

While I appreciate your concerns about the Pacific and Midwest, I trust the people of the Midwest to sort out their activity problems, and I feel they are trending upward. As I've said, TNF has shown his activity and commitment to Atlasia. You have the three members that you yourself has mentioned - bang. There's the four people you need to make the Midwest run. And if one of them retires, I'm sure you or windjammer can recruit someone else - hell, I can name at least one person in the Midwest who would be willing to run if I contacted him. That's a good enough base to build off on.

[free my dawg]

But since I've whined so much about a three-region plan, why not design my own? I'd have to give a lot of credit to Bacon King, whose plan mine is based off of. Here, the thriving, active regions of the Mideast (hopefully when windjammer takes office) and the Northeast stay largely intact, and the Pacific is divided among the Midwest and the South (creating a new region - the Northwest). The only real difference is aesthetics and population - Kansas and Colorado both stay in the Northwest to balance population between the Northwest and the other regions, Manitoba is added to the Mideast in order to connect Nunavut with the rest of the region by land, and the Northeast is given Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland to even out the number of provinces each region has.

note: unseen is the transfer of Manitoba to the Mideast and NS, PEI, and NL to the Northeast

Here's a population chart of Atlasia, as of May 18, 2015:

Region	Labor	Fed	TPP	CR	DR	TD	other	ind	Total
Mideast	18	13	3	1	3	1	2	4	45
Northeast	14	4	9	2	2	0	2	8	41
Midwest	13	5	2	1	0	1	5	5	32
South	5	8	7	1	3	1	1	6	32
Pacific	4	3	4	6	0	5	2	2	26
Total	54	33	25	11	8	8	12	25	176

[/quote]

And here is a population chart of my map (as you can see, it's relatively equal and the lowest percentage of population it has to its people is around 22.6%:



This is a plan that I could get behind that allows the Midwest to rebound.

[free my dawg]

As for a plan, here's a rough idea for what the governments of each region would look like today if the Sawx-Bacon Plan went into effect in February (and the Southern Assembly had five seats):

Northeast:

Unchanged from previous

Mideast:

Governor: Gass3268
Senator: windjammer
Assembly: Truman, New Canadaland (S), EarlAW, shua, JCL

Essentially unchanged. I believe that TDAS appoints Gass instead of Motley in this situation.

South:

Governor: Flo
Senator: Cranberry
Assembly: Turkisblau (S), PiT, darthebearnc, Gully Foyle, Spiral

The government is largely dominated by The People's Party, though Labor and the Transcendental Democrats could certainly make a play here at larger seats. Cranberry cannot move to British Columbia because BC is in the Northwest.

Northwest:

Governor: MaxQue or Spamage (depends on if Labor can hold a candidate)
Senator: TNF
Assembly: Dereich, Fuzzybigfoot, Joe Mad

This region is zombie-rich and light in candidates. If each party manages to convert their inactives into living, breathing voters, they (especially the Labor Party) can revive this region easily. Three members might actually be better for now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Those posts are scattered all over the place and it's a pain for me to try and relocate them, so I'll just say this: the only way you can have bicameralism is if you reduce the number of regions.

Yes, if you insist on the eleven member lower house like that which you proposed and had numbers to justify with. Basically, you would transition activity and candidates to the Federal level from the regional level, end up with a slightly fewer number of offices overal. One think you definately would have with that many members is the concern that things would take much longer to sort out and for the legsilative branch to function.

Consolidation is polling worse then bimcameralism (52% Nay versus 60% Nay).

Both are down considerably from two years ago. But Bicameralism's support number was 48% and now it seems to be 47%. The difference is the undecideds are all being pushed in this current poll being conucted and are going for the safe bet, "no".  Consolidation has fluctuated wildly though in support and runs headlong into regional jealousies over territory and such forth.

Bicameralism has merits on my own in my view and as well as negatives, it certainly is more than just a tagalong to consolidation and in this case, a more subdued lower house (smaller) that still leaves the balance roughly the same (five to seven members, for a net 0 change in offices) might be the more practical option.

 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would like to reaffirm my staunch and firm opposition to the Fix the Regions Amendment and the Bicameral Birthing Amendment. Quite frankly, the policy to reduce the regions from five to three comes from an archaic system that has already been fixed. Speaker Turkisblau and Governor Simfan have revived the Pacific, Flo has revived the South, and Governor TDAS made the Mideast active once again (as I have faith that windjammer will if he wins). It's also worth noting that Senator TNF has shown his commitment to Atlasia, and that I also have faith in him that the Midwest will be more active under his leadership. Instead of one region without activity problems, we have three, with two regions likely to have active governors by June.

After all, why solve the problems of May and June with a plan from last August and September?

With all due respect, this is just horribly wrong. The fact is that the problem with activity and competition is just as much of a problem now as it was before and will be just as much of a problem in the future, and an objective solution to the problem is always going to be valid because the problem itself is structural. Nobody could have anticipated the structural issues in the beginning with crafting five separate regions, yet it has remained unfixed for years. Let's break the regions down one-by-one with the actual stats, since they were referenced:

Pacific: FAILING

Turkisblau is essentially talking to himself. The Governor hasn't engaged with legislation or on the Regional Governments board since March 19th (excluding his court case Pacific v. Poirot). There have been a grand total of two bills introduced in the Pacific Council since the beginning of April: Reinstatement of the Pacific Protection of Commerce in Arms Act & The Pacific Organ Donation Act of 2015. Cranberry (not a Councilor) is the only other person besides Turkisblau to say a word about them. Before these, the last bill to pass/fail the Council passed on April 2. Elections are never competitive and even if they are, it is in name only, as Councillors are apt to never swear in or show up once they have.

MIDWEST: STRUGGLING

Very low levels of engagement in this region, but it blows the Pacific out of the water, for at least others are actually speaking. There have been three bills introduced in the Althing since the beginning of April: the Je Suis Charlie Day Resolution, the Fifth Most Serene Republic of the Midwest Constitution, & the Heating Fuel Reduction Bill. Speaker Dereich, Governor Gass and Representative Fuzzybigfoot are essentially the only three individuals engaging on legislation and amendments at this point. Fielding more candidates for Althing than there are seats is rare.

SOUTH: STABLE

Definitely doing better than either the Midwest or the Pacific, the South seems stable for the time being. There have been six pieces of legislation/regional amendments introduced since the beginning of April (I don't include federal amendments voted on by the Legislature as part of this measurement, because that's not really indicative of regional activity). There have been 73 replies to all bills; 64 non-procedural replies. 60% of all non-procedural engagement came from PiT and Duke (22 replies from PiT, 17 from Duke). It just had a competitive election and 2/3 seats' worth of turnover, so we'll see what happens in the future.

MIDEAST: STABLE

The Mideast is the largest region, so it should be the most prosperous. However, I don't believe that is the case - maybe the 2nd most prosperous, but it has structural issues. The Governor is constantly coming and going, which can make legislative processes more difficult depending on the outcome. There have been five pieces of legislation introduced since the beginning of April. There have been 184 replies to all bills; a healthy mixture of contributions from all elected representatives. Again, weighing the issue with inactivity in the executive branch here against the concentration of contributions in the South makes it hard to say which region is better off.

NORTHEAST: THRIVING

Since the overall purpose was to outline what's wrong, I'm not going to write much here about the Northeast. It is both large enough and naturally competitive enough - with a variety of different parties and ideologies having roughly equal presences and no one possessing a majority - that the best rises to the top. By my quick count, 23 pieces of legislation have come to the floor since the beginning of April. Debate by and large is healthily spread across representatives.


So yes, as almost always, we have three regions that are either doing well or are sufficiently healthy enough to be considered successes, and two other regions that are floundering. The current environment is actually a pretty good (but still average) result: just as often, we have only two stable or thriving regions with three struggling or failing. The names of the regions considered healthy or not may and do change over time, but the overall balance is always present: three decent regions and two terrible ones. The only long-term and permanent solution to guarantee the health of all regions is to recognize this reality and reduce their presence to three.

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

Pacific needs a competative opposition party. One Party rule has ruined it since the beginning. Be it the Ford-WMS organization, Bgwah and thE JCP, Liebruls, Labor and now TPP. One party takes it over and the opposition just melts away leaving them dominant to do whatever or not do whatever they want. It also didn't help that people left the Pacific for other regions both last year and this year, for regions that were in large part doing much better. Of course that is a natural occurence in such circumstances, such contributes to damaging the Pacific far more.

The NE, South, Mideast will vote out an inactive Governor and that was the case even when the Feds dominated the last two, though usually they ended up retiring in that case.

Anyway, Kudos to Speaker PiT and Archduke Dereich.

[Adam Griffin]

Yes, if you insist on the eleven member lower house like that which you Duke proposed and had numbers to justify with. Basically, you would transition activity and candidates to the Federal level from the regional level, end up with a slightly fewer number of offices overal. One think you definately would have with that many members is the concern that things would take much longer to sort out and for the legsilative branch to function.

It contains what I insisted on regarding the Senate so AYE

Consolidation is polling worse then bimcameralism (52% Nay versus 60% Nay).

Both are down considerably from two years ago. But Bicameralism's support number was 48% and now it seems to be 47%. The difference is the undecideds are all being pushed in this current poll being conucted and are going for the safe bet, "no".  Consolidation has fluctuated wildly though in support and runs headlong into regional jealousies over territory and such forth.

I wasn't aware consolidation was polling at all right now. I suppose implicitly it is, by virtue of polling bicameralism, because you literally cannot have bicameralism without consolidation or you will crater the game.

Bicameralism has merits on my own in my view and as well as negatives, it certainly is more than just a tagalong to consolidation and in this case, a more subdued lower house (smaller) that still leaves the balance roughly the same (five to seven members, for a net 0 change in offices) might be the more practical option.

Again, from a practical standpoint, no, it doesn't - without consolidation.

And what? The only way you can have no change in offices without touching the regions is to gut the Senate to what? Three members? And at that point, you'd have a 3-member Senate and a 7-member House. There is literally no point to that and it would be completely ridiculous.

The regions have 32/47 (68%) of the offices in the game - 37 (79%) if you include regional Senators (for what it's worth, I counted incorrectly last night when I said there were 52 offices: apparently I counted regional Senators twice). There are too many offices. The regions are not being asked to become a minority. In fact...

Currently:
47 offices in-game

FTRA/BBA Proposed:
42 offices in-game

Currently:
Regions: 32 offices - 68%
Federal: 15 offices - 32%

Proposed:
Regions: 22 offices - 52%
Federal: 20 offices - 48%

[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).

[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.