An idea I've been toying with

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How about reducing the size of the Senate to ensure more competitive federal elections?

Basically, instead of 10, there would be 8 Senators, four elected at-large and four from districts (since we have more than 4 regions). Electoral cycles remains the same.

What do you think?

[Senator Cris]

I'm in favour of reducing the size of the Senate.
3 regions. 2 Senators per region + 1 Senator elected At-Large (At-Large elections for 1 seat are really interesting) = 7 Senators.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm in favour of reducing the size of the Senate.
3 regions. 2 Senators per region + 1 Senator elected At-Large (At-Large elections for 1 seat are really interesting) = 7 Senators.

It's very good, but I'd still have at least 2 Senators elected at large. Your proposal makes population at large underrepresented.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

When I was running for At-Large Senate a few weeks back, I proposed a plan for a 7-member Senate:

The Senate would be the most changed of the three branches. Under the new system, there would be three classes of senators: Class A would consist of senators elected by the Regions, Class B would consist of senators elected per a district system, and Class C would consist of a single At-Large Senator who would serve as the chamber's ceremonial presiding officer much as the Vice President does now. In the event that the president leaves office before the end of his term, the Senator At-Large would assume the office of president. (NOTE: These changes include Regional Consolidation, so the number of Senators would actually decrease under this plan.) Senators would continue to serve four year terms, with elections for Class A held in presidential election months and elections for Classes B and C held two months afterwards.

This plan also abolished the vice presidency, vesting the powers of that office in the Senator At-Large.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

When I was running for At-Large Senate a few weeks back, I proposed a plan for a 7-member Senate:

The Senate would be the most changed of the three branches. Under the new system, there would be three classes of senators: Class A would consist of senators elected by the Regions, Class B would consist of senators elected per a district system, and Class C would consist of a single At-Large Senator who would serve as the chamber's ceremonial presiding officer much as the Vice President does now. In the event that the president leaves office before the end of his term, the Senator At-Large would assume the office of president. (NOTE: These changes include Regional Consolidation, so the number of Senators would actually decrease under this plan.) Senators would continue to serve four year terms, with elections for Class A held in presidential election months and elections for Classes B and C held two months afterwards.

This plan also abolished the vice presidency, vesting the powers of that office in the Senator At-Large.

i hope you meant four-month terms, not four-year terms

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

When I was running for At-Large Senate a few weeks back, I proposed a plan for a 7-member Senate:

The Senate would be the most changed of the three branches. Under the new system, there would be three classes of senators: Class A would consist of senators elected by the Regions, Class B would consist of senators elected per a district system, and Class C would consist of a single At-Large Senator who would serve as the chamber's ceremonial presiding officer much as the Vice President does now. In the event that the president leaves office before the end of his term, the Senator At-Large would assume the office of president. (NOTE: These changes include Regional Consolidation, so the number of Senators would actually decrease under this plan.) Senators would continue to serve four year terms, with elections for Class A held in presidential election months and elections for Classes B and C held two months afterwards.

This plan also abolished the vice presidency, vesting the powers of that office in the Senator At-Large.

i hope you meant four-month terms, not four-year terms

Yes.

[pikachu]

My thinking is pretty much the same as Truman, except I'd give the duties of the presiding officer to the dean of the Senate instead of the at-large Senator.

[Leinad]

Why not retain the 5 regional senators, and simply reduce the number of at-large senators? What's the reason to have the same number of each?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Why not retain the 5 regional senators, and simply reduce the number of at-large senators? What's the reason to have the same number of each?

I don't have a problem with this in theory, but I don't think Atlasia can sustain 5 active Regions right now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Why not retain the 5 regional senators, and simply reduce the number of at-large senators? What's the reason to have the same number of each?

I don't have a problem with this in theory, but I don't think Atlasia can sustain 5 active Regions right now.

Neither do I.

[Leinad]

Why not retain the 5 regional senators, and simply reduce the number of at-large senators? What's the reason to have the same number of each?

I don't have a problem with this in theory, but I don't think Atlasia can sustain 5 active Regions right now.

Fair enough. Basically, I think that 4-5 regional senators and 3-4 at-large senators to make it equal 7 or 8 would work best, if we're looking to reduce the Senate numbers (which makes sense).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm happy most of us seems to agree on principle.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why not retain the 5 regional senators, and simply reduce the number of at-large senators? What's the reason to have the same number of each?

To prevent one from out voting the other. Basically the equivalent of the divide in real life between State based Senate and proportional based House, but in a unicameral format.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I prefer a bicameral system organized along the lines of the Duke Plan, but with a much smaller house than his 2013 plan called for. 

Original Duke Plan: Six Regional Senators (two per Region w/ 3 regions) + 11 I think member People's House.

So that but with like 5 members in the House so as to cope with our smaller active population now. That would be +1 on the national legislature, but a reduction overal of 6 to 9 seats from having fewer regions.

A Four Region map can achieve a sub 10 member National Legislature

4 Regions x 1 each = 4 SEnators  + 4 to 5 People's Representatives = 8 to 9.

But of course for those two fewer seats nationally, you might have three to five more regionally.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't think we could sustain a bicameral Congress in present situation

[Leinad]

Why not retain the 5 regional senators, and simply reduce the number of at-large senators? What's the reason to have the same number of each?

To prevent one from out voting the other. Basically the equivalent of the divide in real life between State based Senate and proportional based House, but in a unicameral format.

I suppose that makes sense, but then again, if 4-5 regional Senators, each from different regions, can agree on something, it's probably not a bad bill. Would there be a scenario where all the regional senators agree on one thing, but all the At-Large senators don't? (My brain's struggling to find one, but maybe that's just me.)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Why not retain the 5 regional senators, and simply reduce the number of at-large senators? What's the reason to have the same number of each?

To prevent one from out voting the other. Basically the equivalent of the divide in real life between State based Senate and proportional based House, but in a unicameral format.

I suppose that makes sense, but then again, if 4-5 regional Senators, each from different regions, can agree on something, it's probably not a bad bill. Would there be a scenario where all the regional senators agree on one thing, but all the At-Large senators don't? (My brain's struggling to find one, but maybe that's just me.)

Well, consolidation for one. Let's say, hypothetically, that a moderately popular three-Region map was introduced in the Senate. At-Large senators would have an incentive to support it, or at least would have no reason to oppose it: they rely on the approval of the national electorate and are unaffected by Regional boundaries. Regional senators, however, might be more hesitant: consolidation could potentially endanger their reelection prospects by throwing them into a Region whose voters are indifferent to them or loyal to another long-time representative. If Regional senators outnumber At-Large senators (say, in a 6-1 system like what you proposed), consolidation might very well be defeated by the interests of the Regional senators, even if the population at large supports it.