The Washington Society

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

3.) Parties- Clearly there's an issue with the way that parties have become, largely the fact that as many said you can simply join a party without any campaigning and get elected to a regional seat. People literally vote for a donkey with a rosette-this happens on all sides of the political spectrum. The Party system has lead to awful rivalries that seemed based on absolutely nothing apart from long term fueds. Labor seem hated for their relative power in the last couple of months, along with it's reserves of voters, TPP have split in two over this issue and have always been a strange party in that they have  centre left liberals and centre right conservatives. The Federalists have fallen apart, with a slight fightback and Civic Renewal are a new party that whilst active only has 1 Federal office holder. The Party system is clearly broken with all parties becoming rather souless.

I disagree with you on certain points, but I think the essence of your observations are correct. How do you propose we fix this?

[Leinad]

3.) Parties- Clearly there's an issue with the way that parties have become, largely the fact that as many said you can simply join a party without any campaigning and get elected to a regional seat. People literally vote for a donkey with a rosette-this happens on all sides of the political spectrum. The Party system has lead to awful rivalries that seemed based on absolutely nothing apart from long term fueds. Labor seem hated for their relative power in the last couple of months, along with it's reserves of voters, TPP have split in two over this issue and have always been a strange party in that they have  centre left liberals and centre right conservatives. The Federalists have fallen apart, with a slight fightback and Civic Renewal are a new party that whilst active only has 1 Federal office holder. The Party system is clearly broken with all parties becoming rather souless.

I disagree with you on certain points, but I think the essence of your observations are correct. How do you propose we fix this?

Outside of pulling 100 more active participants from a clown car, it would be tricky to find ways to fix it. The competitiveness is the issue, if there were more candidates, you'd actually need to run a good campaign, even to get elected to regional legislatures. But considering the sheer number of elected offices that exist, it's hard to beat major parties in that region in multi-winner elections, and as we saw in the last regional senate elections, 2-candidate races can be rather uncompetitive as well.

Two things that we can do to fix this is: increase activity, and/or decrease the number of offices. The former could be done either by bringing in new active members (which would be hard to do without inviting an epidemic of socks) and/or making our current "zombies" more active. The latter could most easily be done by consolidation of the Midwest and Pacific--which I'd support if the regions themselves support it (I'd strongly oppose any forced consolidation against the will of the citizens).

Overall, I think all of Atlasia's problems are either sources or side-effects of the main problem: a lack of activity. The sources that we have listed include: lack of people who care, GM, government, game engine, lack of issues, lack of ideological competition, and lack of civility, while the side-effects include: lack of party quality, more offices than users, and a lack of competitive elections. Not to mention the lack of activity is a partial cause for itself: if this place was more active, it would be easier for people to take part in making it more active, and more appealing for possible-active users to join.

Does anyone have any possible solutions for the lack of activity?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I agree 100% that inactivity is the root of the current crisis. The other problems that have been noted here and elsewhere are real, but that is the cause. That makes reviving Atlasia much more difficult, because you can't simply legislate inactivity away. Combatting it will require we ourselves, as citizens, to make a conscious effort to change how we play the game.

1. Active, public campaigning. It is rare to see candidates for office making their case in the public forum; more often, they rely on personal messaging to turn out inactive voters and make little or no effort to maintain an active campaign thread. This is especially true for major party candidates, who can rely on their base and party infrastructure to put them over the edge. The problem with this is that, when the entirety of a campaign is conducted behind closed doors, there is very little opportunity for a public dialogue - this drives down participation (because there is little to participate in) and fuels what we might call 'robotic voting' (that is, voting for a candidate based on their party rather than their ideas or experience).

In short, candidates need to make more of an effort to campaign publicly. A handful of users  do this already (Lumine, TNF, and Polnut come to mind), but in order to revive Atlasia this needs to become the rule, not the exception.

2. More parties. When one or two large coalitions dominate Atlasia, the tendency to rely on party infrastructure instead of actively campaigning is fueled. The most obvious solution to this is to increase the number of parties. If no party has a numerical advantage over the others, candidates are forced to take their campaigns out into the open and win over the opposition. This in turn lends itself to more competitive elections and thus more fun.

I should note that I am not blaming folks like Griffin and Yankee for building successful party structures. That said, it would be good to see more small parties springing up, as opposed to having all the center-left users join Labor and all the center-right users navigate towards the Feds/ CR.

These two suggestions, if adopted by the citizenry, could do much to revive activity and interest in the game. That said, we cannot adopt a policy of "try harder and hope someone cares"; therefore, action must be taken to make the game more sustainable in the event that activity does not increase. To that end, I would recommend a general reduction of the number of offices, both at the federal and the Regional level. Why? Because if there are fewer offices, ambitious users would be forced to compete for positions in the government; this would lead to more competitive elections, even if activity levels remain constant. The easiest way to achieve this would be Consolidation, which would reduce the number of Senate seats in addition to the number of Regional positions.

The bottom line here is that the fate of Atlasia rests in the hands of its citizens. Lawmakers and civic leaders can do much to increase interest by starting discussions about policy and governmental reform, but in the end only the collective determination of the electorate to take part in the game can make this game, or any game, successful.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We've had some great input over the last few days: thanks to all who offered their perspectives on these pressing issues so far. Perhaps the most encouraging element of this dialogue has been the extent to which citizens on both sides of the aisle agree on the problems facing the game and the path forward. The following is composite of our member's suggestions, organized according to the problem or trend they address. Hopefully this will be of assistance as we attempt to rebuild Atlasia.

Having identified the problems facing our Republic, the next step is to devise a plan for reforming the game. I believe Cris has already proposed changes to the national government in another thread, but it would be great if everyone would chip in here. Once that's done, we can begin debating the different plans with the goal of formulating a proposal that both injects new life into the game and has a wide base of popular support.

Part I: Structural Challenges

Too Many Regions

I would suggest decreasing the number of Regions to four, or perhaps three, depending on whether the populations of the Mideast and Northeast will agree to consolidate. There's been much controversy surrounding this point (I myself have been hesitant to merge my Region with another), but at this point I think that some form of consolidation is absolutely necessary if we want to see sustained competition at the Regional level. In addition to increasing the populations of the affected Regions, consolidation has the added bonus of decreasing the number of available offices, and fewer offices will almost certainly lead to more contested elections...

I feel obliged to note that as any proposed Constitution would require the assent of the affected Regions, we would not be "forcing" consolidation on anyone. Anti-consolidation citizens would have the ability to vote against the Constitution (though, of course, I would suggest they not).

The Senate

a reduction of number of regions would lead to a change in the Senate. We can discuss about At-Large seats and why not about bicameralism...
At-Large elections (especially elections for 5 seats) are not working.

The Game Moderator

More details on how the GM should operate. Maybe automate some things (specifically economic matters).

The GM's powers need to be clearly written into law so that controversies like Nuke-a-palooza don't occur. I'm not sure how to prevent abuse on the part of the GM, but we certainly need a clause stating that no official (or citizen) can challenge the legitimacy of the GM's storyline. A lack of realism can occasionally be annoying, yes, but mob rule is much, much more damaging to the game.

An alternative solution (which, for the record, I oppose) would be to eliminate the GM position or to limit its powers to reporting on the state of the economy.

I thought Kal was a brilliant GM, and it's a shame he was forced out. What was worse was that no-one was paying attention to him at all, literally he published about 10-12 stories and no-one did anything related to it. There's no point having a GM if he's ignored, and you also need a GM who is active in the Future. As said before, it seems stupid the Senate could pass a 100% wealth tax, and not expect to see any problems. We're suppose to be politics nerds-surely we could get a bit wonky time to time. An active thriving Atlasia needs a GM, and a GM that is listened to.

Nothing for Lawmakers to Do

Encourage an active Game Moderator. Both Blair and Yankee have praised GMs like Kalwejt for their activity, even if it's sometimes controversial. Without GM-based events, there really isn't much for them to do. I mean, it's not like they can make marijuana even more legal or make the death penalty even more abolished.

I see two ways to potentially deal with this: we need to either grant new and increased powers to the GM, allowing him to simulate new economic, social, and international problems for the Senate to respond to, and/or we need a legislative reset.

Due to a lack of events the Federal Government has been reduced to a campaigning tool, where no major efforts are taken on the whole. Despite it's powers the President has become a figure head who signs bills. It's ironic that we have such a deeply divided party system yet the Presidency is not cared about unless there's an election. Again links back to the lack of a GM presence on the board.

(Continued in the next post)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Part II: How We Play the Game

Inactivity

More people. If there's a better solution, I'd love to here it.

We need a good stream of players, without a doubt. What many people have ignored in the last couple of weeks is that Atlasia thrives on activity-July was one of the least active months on record. We had 6/10 Senators for most of the month, and a Presidental Election where neither side published a manifesto, or any policy. Now we need to value that this is just a game, and that RL issues can and will come up at any stage. However I think people need to put something into the game, and see what happens. As I've said before it needs a shot of Adrenaline-look at the Senate in the last couple of days.

It is rare to see candidates for office making their case in the public forum; more often, they rely on personal messaging to turn out inactive voters and make little or no effort to maintain an active campaign thread. This is especially true for major party candidates, who can rely on their base and party infrastructure to put them over the edge. The problem with this is that, when the entirety of a campaign is conducted behind closed doors, there is very little opportunity for a public dialogue - this drives down participation (because there is little to participate in) and fuels what we might call 'robotic voting' (that is, voting for a candidate based on their party rather than their ideas or experience).

In short, candidates need to make more of an effort to campaign publicly. A handful of users  do this already (Lumine, TNF, and Polnut come to mind), but in order to revive Atlasia this needs to become the rule, not the exception.

Lack of Ideological Competiton

This one really can't be fixed by governmental action, but it's worth brining up anyways. One of the biggest reasons that elections have been less "fun" of late is that the political right has been in steady decline over the last few months. In days gone by, the Mideast was a solid Federalist stronghold and the Midwest was competitive; in the last federal election, however, both regions went for the Labor candidate by more than 60%. I don't think anyone's to blame for this (no-one can fault Yankee for not trying to recruit more conservative users), but it would be great if the political right were competitive outside of a few strongholds in the South and Northeast.

Clearly there's an issue with the way that parties have become, largely the fact that as many said you can simply join a party without any campaigning and get elected to a regional seat. People literally vote for a donkey with a rosette-this happens on all sides of the political spectrum. The Party system has lead to awful rivalries that seemed based on absolutely nothing apart from long term fueds. Labor seem hated for their relative power in the last couple of months, along with it's reserves of voters, TPP have split in two over this issue and have always been a strange party in that they have  centre left liberals and centre right conservatives. The Federalists have fallen apart, with a slight fightback and Civic Renewal are a new party that whilst active only has 1 Federal office holder. The Party system is clearly broken with all parties becoming rather souless.

When one or two large coalitions dominate Atlasia, the tendency to rely on party infrastructure instead of actively campaigning is fueled. The most obvious solution to this is to increase the number of parties. If no party has a numerical advantage over the others, candidates are forced to take their campaigns out into the open and win over the opposition. This in turn lends itself to more competitive elections and thus more fun.

I should note that I am not blaming folks like Griffin and Yankee for building successful party structures. That said, it would be good to see more small parties springing up, as opposed to having all the center-left users join Labor and all the center-right users navigate towards the Feds/ CR.

Outside of pulling 100 more active participants from a clown car, it would be tricky to find ways to fix it. The competitiveness is the issue, if there were more candidates, you'd actually need to run a good campaign, even to get elected to regional legislatures. But considering the sheer number of elected offices that exist, it's hard to beat major parties in that region in multi-winner elections, and as we saw in the last regional senate elections, 2-candidate races can be rather uncompetitive as well.

Two things that we can do to fix this is: increase activity, and/or decrease the number of offices. The former could be done either by bringing in new active members (which would be hard to do without inviting an epidemic of socks) and/or making our current "zombies" more active. The latter could most easily be done by consolidation of the Midwest and Pacific--which I'd support if the regions themselves support it (I'd strongly oppose any forced consolidation against the will of the citizens).

Lack of Civility

Just refraining from being jerks. It's not hard. I'd hate to think we'd need laws to abolish jerkery, but if so, that shouldn't be ruled out. Important people like the President should encourage better behavior.

Don't be jerks, guys.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My proposal:

The Federal Government

Executive Branch: As now, headed by a popularly-elected president chosen every four months. The president is charged with reviewing legislation passed by the Senate, leading the armed forces, appointing members of the cabinet and the Supreme Court, and enforcing federal laws.
      Changes: The vice presidency is abolished.

The Legislative Branch: All legislative powers are vested in the Senate, which is composed of three classes: three Regional Senators, three District Senators, and a single Senator At-Large chosen by the entire population. The Senator At-Large, in addition to being a full member of the Senate, would serve as the ceremonial presiding officer of the chamber (as the VP does now). Senators are elected to four-month terms.
      Changes: Number of Senators reduced from 10 to 7; Class B elected from Districts instead   
                      of at-large; office of Senator At-Large created.

Judicial Branch: Essentially the same as now: three justices appointed for life (or until resignation/ impeachment) by the president.


The Regions
The number of Regions is reduced from 5 to 3. Each Region is charged with devising its own system of government. The Districts from which the Class B Senators elected are drawn by a panel of the Regional chief executives, with the Senator At-Large acting as chair.

Thoughts?

[DKrol]

My proposal:

The Federal Government

Executive Branch: As now, headed by a popularly-elected president chosen every four months. The president is charged with reviewing legislation passed by the Senate, leading the armed forces, appointing members of the cabinet and the Supreme Court, and enforcing federal laws.
      Changes: The vice presidency is abolished.

The Legislative Branch: All legislative powers are vested in the Senate, which is composed of three classes: three Regional Senators, three District Senators, and a single Senator At-Large chosen by the entire population. The Senator At-Large, in addition to being a full member of the Senate, would serve as the ceremonial presiding officer of the chamber (as the VP does now). Senators are elected to four-month terms.
      Changes: Number of Senators reduced from 10 to 7; Class B elected from Districts instead   
                      of at-large; office of Senator At-Large created.

Judicial Branch: Essentially the same as now: three justices appointed for life (or until resignation/ impeachment) by the president.


The Regions
The number of Regions is reduced from 5 to 3. Each Region is charged with devising its own system of government. The Districts from which the Class B Senators elected are drawn by a panel of the Regional chief executives, with the Senator At-Large acting as chair.

Thoughts?

Line of succession to the Presidency without a VP?

[Classic Conservative]

Maybe the VP could be the President of the Senate??

[Senator Cris]

This is the current situation on office-holders:

GM - 1
Executive - 7
Legislative - 10
Judiciary - 3
Regional - 29 (7 Mideast, 5 Midwest, 7 Northeast, 5 Pacific, 5 South)

TOTAL - 50

My ideal plans:

1st:

GM - 1
Executive - 7
Legislative - 6/7 (Senate with 2 Senators per region and eventually 1 elected At-Large)
Judiciary - 3
Regional - 18 (6 per region: 1 Governor, 1 Lieutenant, 1 Justice, 3 Representatives)

TOTAL - 35/36

2nd: it's the 1st with an House of 9/11 Representatives, elected At-Large or by Districts, for a total of 44/47 office-holders.

[Leinad]

Here's a crazy idea for the Senate:

4 regions (South, Northeast, Mideast, West). 12 Senators in two classes. Each class has 4 regional senators elected in a single-winner IRV system, and then 2 additional at-large senators elected in an interesting way: there are two items on each ballot, the regional vote and an additional at-large vote that has all of the candidates from each region. Like in STV, the voters who voted for the regional winner wouldn't count to a certain threshold. The two candidates who do best, via STV, in the at-large vote get those two seats.

The same idea could apply with a 3 or 5 region system, just different numbers.

The pros: it's not a single-winner system, so it doesn't lead to major-party dominance. At the same time, it's not as uncompetitive as the current at-large system.

The cons: it's terribly confusing and kind of stupid.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Line of succession to the Presidency without a VP?

My thought would be to keep the current line of succession with the VP removed. This would make the SoEA first in line for the presidency, followed by the SoIA, the AG, and the Speaker. There's also the possibility that the Senator At-Large could be first in line.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

My ideal plans:

1st:

GM - 1
Executive - 7
Legislative - 6/7 (Senate with 2 Senators per region and eventually 1 elected At-Large)
Judiciary - 3
Regional - 18 (6 per region: 1 Governor, 1 Lieutenant, 1 Justice, 3 Representatives)

This seems good to me, though I think the specifics of the Regional governments should be left to the Regions themselves.

2nd: it's the 1st with an House of 9/11 Representatives, elected At-Large or by Districts, for a total of 44/47 office-holders.

I really like the idea of a House of Representatives, but I'm worried that it would create more offices than we can fill. Forty four positions is still a lot (only 6 less than we have at the moment), and I fear it would lead to a lot of uncontested elections. One way we could address this is by stipulating that the SoEA, SoIA, and AG be members of the national legislature; in addition to the abolition of the vice presidency, that would bring us down to 40 offices nationally, and the elimination of the Regional lt. governors would bring us down to 37.

Ultimately, I think we need to dramatically reduce the number of offices. Doing so would lead to more competitive elections, as candidates would be forced to compete for the same seat rather than running unopposed for separate positions. It's possible we could do this and still have a H. of Reps; I just don't know.

Here's a crazy idea for the Senate:

4 regions (South, Northeast, Mideast, West). 12 Senators in two classes. Each class has 4 regional senators elected in a single-winner IRV system, and then 2 additional at-large senators elected in an interesting way: there are two items on each ballot, the regional vote and an additional at-large vote that has all of the candidates from each region. Like in STV, the voters who voted for the regional winner wouldn't count to a certain threshold. The two candidates who do best, via STV, in the at-large vote get those two seats.

The same idea could apply with a 3 or 5 region system, just different numbers.

The pros: it's not a single-winner system, so it doesn't lead to major-party dominance. At the same time, it's not as uncompetitive as the current at-large system.

The cons: it's terribly confusing and kind of stupid.

 
My main concern with this is that it amounts to a net increase of offices nationwide at a time when we are struggling to find enough candidates as it is. There's always the possibility that more users will come along, of course, but I don't think it's wise to be creating new positions at a time when we can barely fill the ones we have.

That said, this is something that hasn't been tried before, and that's exactly the kind of thinking we need. If you can think of a way to do this without increasing the number of Senate seats, I'd be all ears.

[Blair]

Sorry for jumping in, but the real problem is that the executive branch lacks any real power. Bore's and Lumine before him have both been active and effective Presidents, yet it's virtually impossible for a President to craft a legacy unless they mess up.

I'm actually leaning towards a Parliamentary system, because it would fuse the executive and legislature together and actually make things interesting. I mean a parliament of say 20-25 people would be extremely powerful, and governments could be much more fluid.

I'll write something up tomorrow for this, but I'm leaning towards this

[Classic Conservative]

Sorry for jumping in, but the real problem is that the executive branch lacks any real power. Bore's and Lumine before him have both been active and effective Presidents, yet it's virtually impossible for a President to craft a legacy unless they mess up.

I'm actually leaning towards a Parliamentary system, because it would fuse the executive and legislature together and actually make things interesting. I mean a parliament of say 20-25 people would be extremely powerful, and governments could be much more fluid.

I'll write something up tomorrow for this, but I'm leaning towards this

Thing is this is a majority American Forum and most Americans wouldn't want to play.

[DKrol]

Sorry for jumping in, but the real problem is that the executive branch lacks any real power. Bore's and Lumine before him have both been active and effective Presidents, yet it's virtually impossible for a President to craft a legacy unless they mess up.

I'm actually leaning towards a Parliamentary system, because it would fuse the executive and legislature together and actually make things interesting. I mean a parliament of say 20-25 people would be extremely powerful, and governments could be much more fluid.

I'll write something up tomorrow for this, but I'm leaning towards this

Thing is this is a majority American Forum and most Americans wouldn't want to play.

I would.

[Blair]

Sorry for jumping in, but the real problem is that the executive branch lacks any real power. Bore's and Lumine before him have both been active and effective Presidents, yet it's virtually impossible for a President to craft a legacy unless they mess up.

I'm actually leaning towards a Parliamentary system, because it would fuse the executive and legislature together and actually make things interesting. I mean a parliament of say 20-25 people would be extremely powerful, and governments could be much more fluid.

I'll write something up tomorrow for this, but I'm leaning towards this

Thing is this is a majority American Forum and most Americans wouldn't want to play.

There's absolutely no evidence, except you claiming this several times. In all fairness no-one wants to play Atlasia at the moment

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Sorry for jumping in, but the real problem is that the executive branch lacks any real power. Bore's and Lumine before him have both been active and effective Presidents, yet it's virtually impossible for a President to craft a legacy unless they mess up.

I'm actually leaning towards a Parliamentary system, because it would fuse the executive and legislature together and actually make things interesting. I mean a parliament of say 20-25 people would be extremely powerful, and governments could be much more fluid.

I'll write something up tomorrow for this, but I'm leaning towards this

Thing is this is a majority American Forum and most Americans wouldn't want to play.

I would.

As would I.

The biggest hurdle for any Parliamentary proposal is that most Americans are unfamiliar with how such a system would work. That could be addressed by keeping some of the labels of the current system (ie: "Senate" rather than "Parliament", "Speaker" instead of "Prime Minister") or by enacting a French-style government with executive power divided between a Prime Minister and a President.

[DKrol]

Sorry for jumping in, but the real problem is that the executive branch lacks any real power. Bore's and Lumine before him have both been active and effective Presidents, yet it's virtually impossible for a President to craft a legacy unless they mess up.

I'm actually leaning towards a Parliamentary system, because it would fuse the executive and legislature together and actually make things interesting. I mean a parliament of say 20-25 people would be extremely powerful, and governments could be much more fluid.

I'll write something up tomorrow for this, but I'm leaning towards this

Thing is this is a majority American Forum and most Americans wouldn't want to play.

I would.

As would I.

The biggest hurdle for any Parliamentary proposal is that most Americans are unfamiliar with how such a system would work. That could be addressed by keeping some of the labels of the current system (ie: "Senate" rather than "Parliament", "Speaker" instead of "Prime Minister") or by enacting a French-style government with executive power divided between a Prime Minister and a President.

I like that French idea, actually.

[Blair]

only problem is that a President leads to a weak executive branch-that's our biggest problem in Atlasia. The executive branch of government doesn't have anything to do because all major policy that government could do is already sorted

[Leinad]

Here's a crazy idea for the Senate:

4 regions (South, Northeast, Mideast, West). 12 Senators in two classes. Each class has 4 regional senators elected in a single-winner IRV system, and then 2 additional at-large senators elected in an interesting way: there are two items on each ballot, the regional vote and an additional at-large vote that has all of the candidates from each region. Like in STV, the voters who voted for the regional winner wouldn't count to a certain threshold. The two candidates who do best, via STV, in the at-large vote get those two seats.

The same idea could apply with a 3 or 5 region system, just different numbers.

The pros: it's not a single-winner system, so it doesn't lead to major-party dominance. At the same time, it's not as uncompetitive as the current at-large system.

The cons: it's terribly confusing and kind of stupid.

 
My main concern with this is that it amounts to a net increase of offices nationwide at a time when we are struggling to find enough candidates as it is. There's always the possibility that more users will come along, of course, but I don't think it's wise to be creating new positions at a time when we can barely fill the ones we have.

That said, this is something that hasn't been tried before, and that's exactly the kind of thinking we need. If you can think of a way to do this without increasing the number of Senate seats, I'd be all ears.

Actually, it wouldn't overall. If it goes to 4 regions, then the consolidation will take out more than enough seats to make it a net decrease. And if it's 3 regions, then it would only be 10 Senators (3 regional+2 at-large per class).

[Leinad]

I'd like a parliamentary system, but it's a valid concern whether other American users (while there are many non-American Atlasians, like Blair, Kal, and even our current President, Bore, I think the majority of users are American, and almost everyone on US Election Atlas is familiar with our system of politics) would be less likely to play that than a reformed US-system game. It might would be an interesting poll question.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd like a parliamentary system, but it's a valid concern whether other American users (while there are many non-American Atlasians, like Blair, Kal, and even our current President, Bore, I think the majority of users are American, and almost everyone on US Election Atlas is familiar with our system of politics) would be less likely to play that than a reformed US-system game. It might would be an interesting poll question.

Perhaps a non-binding plebiscite on the matter would be a good idea?

[Classic Conservative]

Personally, I would play but many Federalists have already stated that they wouldn't. But, we would have to have some introduction for most American Players

[Blair]

Again, I've yet to see one person say that they wouldn't play Atlasia if it became a parliament. I think it's a pretty stubborn view, and again the current version is hardly popular is it.

[Leinad]

Again, I've yet to see one person say that they wouldn't play Atlasia if it became a parliament. I think it's a pretty stubborn view, and again the current version is hardly popular is it.

I think I've seen some people say they wouldn't play, but maybe I've just seen so many people raise the concern that others won't play. Which would be kind of funny, if it was the case where everyone would be fine with playing but they simply assume that others wouldn't.

I agree that it would be a debate best resolved in a non-biased poll. It is a fact that a reformed parliamentary system would be better than the status quo, but that's not the question: the question is whether a reformed parliamentary system would be better than a reformed US system. I saw a proposal from Senator Polnut (another active non-American, by the way) characterizing the debate as status quo vs. parliamentary vs. dissolution, which is clearly a false narrative (I mean, a Constitutional Convention literally fits nowhere in those options).