HB 2016-1047 - House Seat Reduction Act (GOES TO SENATE)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Clyde

I open this for 48 hour debate.

[NeverAgain]

I guess I will get the ball rolling. As we do have 11? candidates for the House, I feel that the status quo is working well. Making sure we have a steady system for replacement might be something we also should work on.

And also... Not electing completely inactive members to the House in the first place .

[Classic Conservative]

I oppose this bill.

[Enduro]

I think, as evident by the amount of candidates, we don't need to reduce the house. Perhaps we should instead try to prevent inactive players from being elected.

[Clyde1998]

Thanks to Speaker NeverAgain for introducing this to the House.

My main concern relates to the lack of people running for regional office. I feel that reducing the number of representatives in the House would benefit the game at-large through increasing the chances of having active politicians running for regional office. As NeverAgain says we have eleven people running in the House election for nine seats. With fewer available seats for House, I believe that more of these people would be running in the regions.

Also, by having fewer seats, they'll be harder to win; this will, hopefully, have the effect of increasing the number of people publicly campaigning for House elections.

Making sure we have a steady system for replacement might be something we also should work on.

This is an issue. I would prefer a special election to replace representatives, but, ultimately, that's a decision for you guys to make.

And also... Not electing completely inactive members to the House in the first place .

This will be easier to do with fewer seats for two reasons: firstly, it will reduce the chances of people running without being whole heartedly wanting to be elected. There will be occasions where the larger parties run candidates just to ensure they're running enough people to get a majority in the House, so they can ram through certain policies. With a smaller House, the biggest parties would only, realistically, run four candidates (maximum); down from five.

Secondly, having a slightly smaller House would make the quota for the election higher; assuming the same number of votes are cast. This means that if a single party is attempting to get someone, who people feel will be inactive, elected as their fourth representative, they would have to obtain more first preference votes than the currently would to ensure that they aren't eliminates earlier in the race - if you had a similar number of people running.

We need to ensure that the balance is right to ensure that all levels of government is working effectively with active politicians. Having too many people in Federal offices will starve the regions of active politicians. This is a minor change that I believe would have a positive effect on the game.

[Lumine]

If the House forgives me for stepping in the debate, I'd like to fully endorse Clyde's proposal, and request Congress to seriously reflect on it.

Nine seats is just too much for the House of Representatives, and the collective effect of having 15 players serving in Congress is, I believe, detrimental to the regional governments and their chances of getting more officeholders who are active. Whereas people can point out to 11 candidates this time around, that's only two more than the absolute minimum, and finding those 11 candidates doesn't seem to have been an easy task.

And from a practical point of view, a seven seat House should find it a bit easier to handle affairs rather than a nine-member one.

[Kingpoleon]

I'm fine reducing it to eight. Then an amendment to the IVPPA could let the Vice President break a tie here, too.

[NeverAgain]

I thank GM Clyde and VP Lumine for their prompt responses, they definitely made a good case. Strong Regions are the backbone of the game and I completely agree that we must have more people running for them.

But yeah, I am genuinely persuaded by this. I also think that having a 9 (currently 7) member body is like herding cats (speaking from experience) at some points and limiting it to seven could increase the ability to have more GENUINE debate on bills. Seven seats should be the right amount to balance debate and activity with adequate representation.

[Leinad]

We can easily fill 9 seats, the problem is filling them well. I see far too many people either not say anything, or simply state their opinion without elaborating or amending bills (we need more amendmending, that I strongly believe).

My only concern is that this might make it too similar to the Senate in terms of seats, although I suppose that's less important than the other matters.

[Anna Komnene]

We can easily fill 9 seats, the problem is filling them well. I see far too many people either not say anything, or simply state their opinion without elaborating or amending bills (we need more amendmending, that I strongly believe).

My only concern is that this might make it too similar to the Senate in terms of seats, although I suppose that's less important than the other matters.

I agree about more amendments, but I think more discussion is more important.  That's why I usually start out by saying my impressions to try to gauge what everyone thinks.  But if nobody replies, it can be kind of awkward.  The problem is there's no way to force discussion.  We need people who are excited about Atlasia, basically.  The best way to do that long term is to recruit new players.

Not to be a moderate hero, but I think there's definite good arguments on both sides.  Having more seats makes it more likely that people will run that don't really want to just so we can fill the seats.  People that don't want to run aren't likely to be active.  On the other hand, having more voices in the House, gives more opportunity for different views and more likely to have at least a few of them be active.

This might get under some people's skin, but it's the truth.  Maybe the biggest reason to lower the number of seats is that the regions are a complete disaster.  The South started out pretty good, but it got gutted by moves to federal office (myself included).  The last I checked, they haven't even picked a speaker for the new session.  It's pretty sad.  The North might be even worse.  Tbh, I'm not sure that cutting 2 seats in the House is going to solve those problems, but it might help a little bit.  We can always increase the number again later on when the game starts thriving again.

[Enduro]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose this amendment; it returns the nine members, and adds a requirement to be a representative to ensure active candidates.

[Lumine]

Personally I think a seat reduction has to be enacted and soon as a clear step forward, but I defer to the other Representives on whether they think this would help.

[Blair]

That amendment won't make reps more active to be a total cynic

[Enduro]

That amendment won't make reps more active to be a total cynic

No, but it would make sure people who aren't active won't be elected in the first place.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If the number of House seats is reduced, y'all will need to add a clause specifying that the amendment does not take effect until the seating of the next Congress.

[LLR]

Though I am no longer in the House, I would like to voice my overwhelming support for this bill. It will increase competitiveness in elections and thus activity.

[Leinad]

I'd like a Rep to sponsor this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Self-adjusting House, one of my pet ideas.

Also I think 10 times in 4 weeks isn't crazy at all. But I'm not married to these numbers (please change them if you see fit), just the general ideas (the self-adjusting House and Enduro's posting qualification).

One more thing: this should be titled the "House Seat Reduction Amendment," since it is an amendment to the Fourth Constitution.

[Blair]

That amendment won't make reps more active to be a total cynic

No, but it would make sure people who aren't active won't be elected in the first place.

It won't; having 10 posts on the forum in the last two months don't equal being an active poster in Atlasia

[Enduro]

I'd like a Rep to sponsor this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Self-adjusting House, one of my pet ideas.

Also I think 10 times in 4 weeks isn't crazy at all. But I'm not married to these numbers (please change them if you see fit), just the general ideas (the self-adjusting House and Enduro's posting qualification).

One more thing: this should be titled the "House Seat Reduction Amendment," since it is an amendment to the Fourth Constitution.

I'll sponsor the amendment for you, Mr President.

[Anna Komnene]

If the number of House seats is reduced, y'all will need to add a clause specifying that the amendment does not take effect until the seating of the next Congress.

I guess with the new language proposed by President Leinad, we wouldn't need that specification anymore?

[NeverAgain]

Amendment by Rep. Enduro:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

24 hour vote on the matter.

[Enduro]

Aye.

[Mike Thick]

Aye. This is going to help improve things for the reasons others have stated

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Aye

[Anna Komnene]

Aye