A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE

[Vepres]

I'm opposed to a bicameral, non-universalist system; weren't a lot of objections raised to universalism because it would create too much bureaucratic nonsense?

If we persist in forcing regional Senate seats on Atlasia (even if they're called "Governors"), let's put them on equal footing with normal seats, not cripple them even more.  If regional Senate seats aren't competitive (and they aren't) then I don't think taking power away will help that any

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.

So regions would be like the old districts but with a different name and more power?

The whole point of regions was originally to have distinct regional flavors, akin to states IRL, to contrast with districts, which would help ensure equal representation for all.  Regions with district-like shifting boundaries would essentially render regions even more carbon-copy-like than they are now.

We won't be crippling regional Senate seats or forcing them on Atlasia. We will be removing them altogether, thus making governor elections more competitive. And the CoG will be on equal footing with the national Senate seats.

And distinct regions is fine, but you can't have some massive regions and some almost empty. There needs to be a mechanism to make sure elections in all five regions are competitive, so that no one region falls into inactivity and uncompetitiveness because it has too few members to sustain activity.

Perhaps only allow the regions to be changed if one region falls below a certain percentage of the national population. Or maybe a flat number.

Well, on a site I was before, they were refusing registrations for overpopulated regions, so the underpopulated regions were receving more new people.

I would rather not do that. As Atlasia is fairly small we don't want a region full of newbies, that would diminish the region's influence.

[ilikeverin]

Jee... thanks, Vepres

I'm opposed to a bicameral, non-universalist system; weren't a lot of objections raised to universalism because it would create too much bureaucratic nonsense?

If we persist in forcing regional Senate seats on Atlasia (even if they're called "Governors"), let's put them on equal footing with normal seats, not cripple them even more.  If regional Senate seats aren't competitive (and they aren't) then I don't think taking power away will help that any

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.

So regions would be like the old districts but with a different name and more power?

The whole point of regions was originally to have distinct regional flavors, akin to states IRL, to contrast with districts, which would help ensure equal representation for all.  Regions with district-like shifting boundaries would essentially render regions even more carbon-copy-like than they are now.

We won't be crippling regional Senate seats or forcing them on Atlasia. We will be removing them altogether, thus making governor elections more competitive. And the CoG will be on equal footing with the national Senate seats.

I'm glad you agree there is an overabundance of regional positions, but I'm not sure this is the solution to the problem.  The functions of the Governors would then become, under your plan:

* The role of a Senator.
* The role of a Governor (which nobody really cares about).

So you tell me what would be running for... the responsibilities of national governance, or the responsibilities of...

If we do end up keeping regional Senate seats (and I hope we don't), I would support consolidation of those seats and the position of Governor.  That makes more sense than the system we have now.

And distinct regions is fine, but you can't have some massive regions and some almost empty. There needs to be a mechanism to make sure elections in all five regions are competitive, so that no one region falls into inactivity and uncompetitiveness because it has too few members to sustain activity.

I'm not sure number of members is a great metric for this, though.  Back in my day, sonny boy, the Midwest was one of the most active regions, despite being the smallest, as measured by things like turnout rates and number of regional initiatives. (Again, in my estimation, it's not the size, government style, etc. of the different regions that determines activity, but the characteristics of the individuals involved)

How about some level of self-determination by individual states?  Perhaps if the members were allowed to choose which region they were a part of (and have some mechanism to make that change that's easier than it is now), they would be more likely to be active simply as a result of having invested something in choosing the region they were a part of.  Or we could see something akin to "birds of a feather flock together"; so you who want regional legislatures could have your own region, I could have a little fiefdom, and so on

[Vepres]

Jee... thanks, Vepres   Vepres, you're absolutely right, as usual. I should listen to you more often.

[ilikeverin]

Jee... thanks, Vepres   Vepres, you're absolutely right, as usual. I should listen to you more often. ilikeverin youlikeverin wealllikeverin hughughug

[Vepres]

Jee... thanks, Vepres   Vepres, you're absolutely right, as usual. I should listen to you more often. ilikeverin youlikeverin wealllikeverin hughughug With the recent Midwest amendments it's: Governor youGovernor WeallGovernor hughughug.

[Јas]

Unfortunately we're the only region I can foresee a legislature failing in.

There you're not looking hard enough.

See Pacific and Southeastern efforts at legislatures for examples.
The Mideast will probably be added to that list soon enough (the procedural matters appear to be settled -maintaining a legislative agenda is very difficult).

[Χahar]

Obviously we can't keep the current system of regional governors. However, I would still like the regions to be represented in some way on the national level.

Why?

[Χahar]

For the love of God, what is it about regions that intrinsically requires them to be represented? I've been asking this question for a year; no answer.

[MasterJedi]

I refuse to let anyone destroy the regions, or make really any changes at all, especially Lief and those that want a parliment.

All this can be done in the Senate rather easily. This constitutional convention has always been un-needed.

[Vepres]

I refuse to let anyone destroy the regions, or make really any changes at all, especially Lief and those that want a parliment.

All this can be done in the Senate rather easily. This constitutional convention has always been un-needed.

Do you support the idea of a Council of Governors, and what about regional legislatures?

[MasterJedi]

I refuse to let anyone destroy the regions, or make really any changes at all, especially Lief and those that want a parliment.

All this can be done in the Senate rather easily. This constitutional convention has always been un-needed.

Do you support the idea of a Council of Governors, and what about regional legislatures?

A council of Governors that helps with regional things and increasing regional activity? Sure. And yes, I support regional legislatures as long as they can stay active.

[Lief]

Do you support regional Senate seats?

[MasterJedi]

Do you support regional Senate seats?

Yes, I support the regions and regional elections. So I won't refuse to let you destroy that.

[Hashemite]

Somebody explain to me why the regions are so great and a source of pride for Atlasia (and by consequence, why we need to save them), since I really can't think of any reasons.

[Lief]

Do you support regional Senate seats?

Yes, I support the regions and regional elections. So I won't refuse to let you destroy that.

Why do you support inactive, uncompetitive, boring elections? Do you think that's healthy or interesting for the game?

[MasterJedi]

Do you support regional Senate seats?

Yes, I support the regions and regional elections. So I won't refuse to let you destroy that.

Why do you support inactive, uncompetitive, boring elections? Do you think that's healthy or interesting for the game?

You and many others make them uncompetitive. If they choose to run for the national seats and not the regional ones that's their fault.

The national elections are not that competitive and pretty "boring" as well. We know who'll run and almost always know who'll win. How's that any different? It isn't.

[Purple State]

For the love of God, what is it about regions that intrinsically requires them to be represented? I've been asking this question for a year; no answer.

Somebody explain to me why the regions are so great and a source of pride for Atlasia (and by consequence, why we need to save them), since I really can't think of any reasons.

I have no inherent attachment to keeping the regions (although while they exist I believe there should be some boundaries). That said, it simply is not viable to remove the regions under the current power structure. Were we to pass a proposal that removes the regions (which is doubtful as it is), there is no strategy I can conceive of that would pass it in the regions.

I refuse to let anyone destroy the regions, or make really any changes at all, especially Lief and those that want a parliment.

All this can be done in the Senate rather easily. This constitutional convention has always been un-needed.

The Convention is, I believe, better for this simply because it is not bound my time constraints. In the Senate we have 14 or so days to debate something and anything that goes 24 hours without discussion is just brought to a vote. This let's us talk it out, figure out what we want, provides a basis for broader discussion and allows more people to join in working it all out.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we are starting to get into very bad territory here. Combining the role of Senator and the role of Governor, eliminating the judicial branch in regional gov't. You want to create legislatures fine, you want to create a CoG, again I support that. Except #1 you leave the Regional Senate seats alone and allow primaries or indeed primary like situations. The Southeast Senate race could have competative had Duke really put some effort into it. This was one idea that I liked.

You are not going to be able to pass one amendment and say DONE problem solved. Activity is a description of each individual poster and as such to revive this game each poster has to be more involved in the processes of the game. If some regions want to create a legislature like we are moving on the Southeast they may do that if others want to keep there intiative process, again that is fine. Just creating a legislature is not going to improve a region. Either one can work if there is an active citizenry out there listening, talking, supporting, and lobbying for issues.

Okay you thing creating new offices would be a problem, so how would elimnating offices change that. We want more fun races that is true but simply forcing fewer offices on a growing group of candidates means that large numbers will keep losing to there opponents, and then risk them leavign the game. At the same time I want don't want people running unnopposed and winning by default. I want to create a system where there are enough posters to compete for existing positions. The best way to do that is restore political activity at the regional level since that is where newbies come into the game. More Regional Activity=More active Newbies, and it reduces the number of old members leaving.

1. Restore Regional Activity(create legislature or revive the intiative process, create regional papers, organizations, etc)
2. Encourage Primary opponents(basically have members of the same party run against each other).
3. Create a Council of Governors to make those positions more appealing(but in general leave these positions alone). 
4. Retain the Senate as is.
5. Don't gut Regional Gov'ts.
6. Stronger parties.
7. Federal Gov't interaction to create action(Senate hearings to question Gov't officials and to allow officials to make "Offical" reports to the Senate on things like of Foriegn Policy(SoEA).
8. There is still Bgwah's idea of the concept of a war.
9. There is still Fritz's idea of advertising to increase membership.

Very little of the this can be achieved by the federal gov't, thats why as I said we need to revive participation and activity of each poster.

[Purple State]

NC Yank, I believe we disagree on a fundamental piece here, which is you think most of this can be solved if we just let well enough alone, while I think the most effective way to increase activity is by using small, but targeted reforms to cause ripple affects that lead to game reform.

The truth is, if we could just leave the game to fix itself we wouldn't be in this situation right now. We can't just trust people to commit to activity and interest. We need to incentivize activity by making elections more exciting. Honestly, losing an election doesn't often end activity. Just look at Duke. When he was running for Senate he said that if he lost he would likely leave the game for good. Yet, he is still more active now than I ever remember him being during my time here. Meanwhile, non-competitive elections certainly promotes complacency and uncaring.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NC Yank, I believe we disagree on a fundamental piece here, which is you think most of this can be solved if we just let well enough alone, while I think the most effective way to increase activity is by using small, but targeted reforms to cause ripple affects that lead to game reform.

The truth is, if we could just leave the game to fix itself we wouldn't be in this situation right now. We can't just trust people to commit to activity and interest. We need to incentivize activity by making elections more exciting. Honestly, losing an election doesn't often end activity. Just look at Duke. When he was running for Senate he said that if he lost he would likely leave the game for good. Yet, he is still more active now than I ever remember him being during my time here. Meanwhile, non-competitive elections certainly promotes complacency and uncaring.

Did you not understand my previous post. I never advocated doing nothing. I advocate for some tough hard truths. Your tiny tweaks, or Lief massive reforms are barely good enough to wipe you A$$ with unless there is the activity and the wilingness to be active on the part of the posters here. I too have my set of reforms I want to see done at the nation level but I am also looking at the bigger picture and non of this will gurrantee and age of perpetual activity. We need more organised parties for one(I will bet you didn't even know that Dan was planning to abandon your party in August). We need to create a political culture in this game or all reforms are meaningless. Gutting regional offices isn't going to create this. All I see you wanting to create is perpetual elections for fewer offices. I see a snowball effect occuring that will put this game right back where we were, if we go with yours or any of these other ludicrous proposals. I never said we should trust people to be active, instead I hope that reforms I support will encourage that activity.

Your the one thinking small. You only went after the GM issue when it became a problem for the Senate, I was thinking about the effect on Atlasia as whole back in February.

[Lief]

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

[ilikeverin]

Look, "coulda would shoulda" don't matter.  We are having a debate here about what is, not what would be if everything worked perfectly.  I have presented empirical evidence that regional Senate contests are significantly less competitive than national ones:

Number of regions with competitive Senate elections (defined as ones that went past the first round)

Feb 2008: 1
June 2008: 2
Oct 2008: 1 (though "spoiled ballots" almost beat than all other candidates combined in this one)
Feb 2009: 2
June 2009: 1

(updated to take into account Midwest Senate which went into a second round)

In each of these elections, if only people were more active, they would've been competitive.  But the problem is that people aren't, and we have to admit this fact.

If you wish to argue over the metric I used to measure competition, I don't have a problem, but I have a feeling no matter what objectively-measurable criteria you use regional Senate elections are still a good deal less competitive than national ones.

[Purple State]

NC Yank, I believe we disagree on a fundamental piece here, which is you think most of this can be solved if we just let well enough alone, while I think the most effective way to increase activity is by using small, but targeted reforms to cause ripple affects that lead to game reform.

The truth is, if we could just leave the game to fix itself we wouldn't be in this situation right now. We can't just trust people to commit to activity and interest. We need to incentivize activity by making elections more exciting. Honestly, losing an election doesn't often end activity. Just look at Duke. When he was running for Senate he said that if he lost he would likely leave the game for good. Yet, he is still more active now than I ever remember him being during my time here. Meanwhile, non-competitive elections certainly promotes complacency and uncaring.

Did you not understand my previous post. I never advocated doing nothing. I advocate for some tough hard truths. Your tiny tweaks, or Lief massive reforms are barely good enough to wipe you A$$ with unless there is the activity and the wilingness to be active on the part of the posters here. I too have my set of reforms I want to see done at the nation level but I am also looking at the bigger picture and non of this will gurrantee and age of perpetual activity. We need more organised parties for one(I will bet you didn't even know that Dan was planning to abandon your party in August). We need to create a political culture in this game or all reforms are meaningless. Gutting regional offices isn't going to create this. All I see you wanting to create is perpetual elections for fewer offices. I see a snowball effect occuring that will put this game right back where we were, if we go with yours or any of these other ludicrous proposals. I never said we should trust people to be active, instead I hope that reforms I support will encourage that activity.

Your the one thinking small. You only went after the GM issue when it became a problem for the Senate, I was thinking about the effect on Atlasia as whole back in February.

But how do you propose we promote stronger parties or regional activity or primary opponents? Simply going into the parties and regions and saying, "Do this and that for the good of the game" will hardly have an impact. This game has massive inertia and trying to get people to follow you in a movement will likely fail, especially when it will likely weaken their own hold on power.

The only way to affect the change we really need is by implementing small changes that have large impacts. Cutting out the regional Senate seats and simply giving the Governors equal power in a CoG doesn't change that much on the surface (Governors are elected in the same way regional Senators are), but has major impacts as it relates to promoting regional activity. In addition, it actually strengthens the sway of the regions on the national level.

Insisting that we maintain or expand the number of offices is near sighted. We may have a growing game at the moment, but expanding the number of offices when we barely have competitive elections as it is just won't work. If the game does get much larger and elections are becoming too crowded down the road, we can always expand the Senate. But right now we need to make it more competitive, not less. I wouldn't mind keeping the current term lengths so as we don't simply run through Senators like candy, but we can't sustain 5 regional Senate seats that see zero or slight competition.

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

Agreed. Seriously the stuff being proposed, if one takes even a slight glance, will clearly help the game. Regional Senate seats are crap. Governors are crap. But by creating a separate chamber, a CoG, and removing regional senators, we can make newly competitive, activity-inducing positions for the game.

[Vepres]

NC Yank, I believe we disagree on a fundamental piece here, which is you think most of this can be solved if we just let well enough alone, while I think the most effective way to increase activity is by using small, but targeted reforms to cause ripple affects that lead to game reform.

The truth is, if we could just leave the game to fix itself we wouldn't be in this situation right now. We can't just trust people to commit to activity and interest. We need to incentivize activity by making elections more exciting. Honestly, losing an election doesn't often end activity. Just look at Duke. When he was running for Senate he said that if he lost he would likely leave the game for good. Yet, he is still more active now than I ever remember him being during my time here. Meanwhile, non-competitive elections certainly promotes complacency and uncaring.

Did you not understand my previous post. I never advocated doing nothing. I advocate for some tough hard truths. Your tiny tweaks, or Lief massive reforms are barely good enough to wipe you A$$ with unless there is the activity and the wilingness to be active on the part of the posters here. I too have my set of reforms I want to see done at the nation level but I am also looking at the bigger picture and non of this will gurrantee and age of perpetual activity. We need more organised parties for one(I will bet you didn't even know that Dan was planning to abandon your party in August). We need to create a political culture in this game or all reforms are meaningless. Gutting regional offices isn't going to create this. All I see you wanting to create is perpetual elections for fewer offices. I see a snowball effect occuring that will put this game right back where we were, if we go with yours or any of these other ludicrous proposals. I never said we should trust people to be active, instead I hope that reforms I support will encourage that activity.

Your the one thinking small. You only went after the GM issue when it became a problem for the Senate, I was thinking about the effect on Atlasia as whole back in February.

But how do you propose we promote stronger parties or regional activity or primary opponents? Simply going into the parties and regions and saying, "Do this and that for the good of the game" will hardly have an impact. This game has massive inertia and trying to get people to follow you in a movement will likely fail, especially when it will likely weaken their own hold on power.

The only way to affect the change we really need is by implementing small changes that have large impacts. Cutting out the regional Senate seats and simply giving the Governors equal power in a CoG doesn't change that much on the surface (Governors are elected in the same way regional Senators are), but has major impacts as it relates to promoting regional activity. In addition, it actually strengthens the sway of the regions on the national level.

Insisting that we maintain or expand the number of offices is near sighted. We may have a growing game at the moment, but expanding the number of offices when we barely have competitive elections as it is just won't work. If the game does get much larger and elections are becoming too crowded down the road, we can always expand the Senate. But right now we need to make it more competitive, not less. I wouldn't mind keeping the current term lengths so as we don't simply run through Senators like candy, but we can't sustain 5 regional Senate seats that see zero or slight competition.

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

Agreed. Seriously the stuff being proposed, if one takes even a slight glance, will clearly help the game. Regional Senate seats are crap. Governors are crap. But by creating a separate chamber, a CoG, and removing regional senators, we can make newly competitive, activity-inducing positions for the game.

The parties must set a primary system. A candidate must go through it, even if they're the only one in the party. This makes people more likely to run in the primary. I think primaries would add a lot of energy to the game, especially in the pacific and south.

We still have to see what the impact the GM will have. I was talking BrandonH the other day and he said he'd address regional issues and laws.

[President Marokai]

What "massive" reform do I advocate now? Because if a CoG and all nationally-elected Senate seats is too "massive" for people, then we might as well shut down the ConCon right now.

Agreed. Seriously the stuff being proposed, if one takes even a slight glance, will clearly help the game. Regional Senate seats are crap. Governors are crap. But by creating a separate chamber, a CoG, and removing regional senators, we can make newly competitive, activity-inducing positions for the game.

I'm supportive of a Council of Governors, but if we eliminate regional senate seats while adding the Governors to the legislature, aren't we basically just eliminating overall offices and giving a new name to regional Senators? I mean, it's essentially just shuffling things around a bit.

Edit: All the while reducing overall participation.