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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 09:37:09 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  HB 2016-1047 - House Seat Reduction Act (GOES TO SENATE) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: HB 2016-1047 - House Seat Reduction Act (GOES TO SENATE)  (Read 1892 times)
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


« on: October 22, 2016, 06:33:01 PM »
« edited: October 22, 2016, 06:36:00 PM by 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 Tongue.
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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.