Talk Elections

Sponsor: Jbrase

The regions should be responsible for counting the presidential votes there and have them cast in the same booth if we wanted to move ahead with this.

:D I never thought we'd get to one of my bills.


 I think this is a good middle ground between the folks who have an irrational hate for our regions, and the people who want more rights for the regions. I would support all elections except the at-large senators being handled by the regions but I don't thing it would pass.

The only opposition I have is that I don't think it's fair to have the SoFE have to count 5 different voting methods... I'm not sure how many contested counts you've been around for, and how nasty they can be... but this is my objection to it.... it has nothing to do with Regional rights.

If there can be basic universal standards applied, I might be able to see beyond the potential problems. 

I won't vote for this middle ground then. Compromise for the sake of compromise is a recipe for poor public policy. Quite frankly, the middle ground sucks (as it does in almost all cases) and option A (real reform) or option B (status quo) is far preferable to it.

A fun idea in theory but far too complicated. The SoFE now has to keep track of five different voting booths, and potentially administer five separate kinds of elections (in addition to the Presidential election)? I won't be voting for this.

There is absolutely nothing complicated about this.

Either way, people need to realize one thing: If people want something to change or be more interesting, then by necessity, something has to change and people have to learn something new. If the objection to any change is "too complicated, I don't wanna learn something new!" then we may as well pack it up right now.


Teddy has said he doesn't mind that, if it came to it. But I don't think there's anything wrong with letting the region themselves handle the election just like they do every other regional office.

Also, just as an aside, I think I can say with some confidence that pretty much the entire Game Reform Committee is a fan of this proposal.

Yeah, I agree.  Sorry Jbrase.  And it real life, local/regional/state governments have often manipulated the distribution of voting booths to change election results in favor of certian parties....

The Amendment explicitly says the elections must remain fair and any new voting system suspected of being undemocratic could easily be challenged in court if it actually got to that point. I don't see how this is a realistic scenario.

Honestly, I don't see a safeguard - it's all platitudes

If this were to go ahead - a very strict set of standards need to be listed and met.

Why must they be linked?

Yes, I know Jbrase has good intentions, but I just don't trust some local governments to stay to the exact wording and not find loopholes.  ;)

Thinking on it, I do want to have an open-mind on this - but the reasons need to go beyond the 'regional rights' argument... which I think is a bit of a crock..

You consider yourself a pragmatist at heart, correct?

Look at it, then, this way: We can all agree that elections have been getting a bit more drab and not a lot has changed in Atlasia in a long time. We bleed old members, and have difficulty keeping ahold of new ones. There has been practically no campaigning for most Senate elections lately, and we seem set to repeat that same thing with the next at-large elections.

Alot of the proposals that have come and gone in the last two years have died because they were unable to garner support from both sides. Please, take a look at the Constitutional Convention sub-board just above us. Nothing came out of that because proposals were too far-reaching, (and some people a little too stubborn), to get enough support to pass.

This proposal is designed in some way as a way to bridge the support of Game Reformers, with the regionalists, who have in the past, stood in the way of reform because it was too radical, yet now, they support proposals like these. In terms of getting changes to pass, this is not only a regional rights proposal, but it is also one that is very pragmatic at heart.

Expansion of regional rights is certainly a motive here, but so it making the game more interesting, which this Amendment will certainly do if given a chance. It isn't complicated, it isn't complex. It does one very simple thing: It treats regional Senators as regional offices just like regional legislators and Governors.


Perhaps I am too optimistic, I will grant you. :P But I do believe, as I'm sure Jbrase does, that there are ways to limit the risk, and any unfair voting system that benefits one party over another (which is less of a voting-system thing and more of a qualifications thing) can most definitely be challenged to the Supreme Court.

There must be some way to reduce that risk of abuse that would be acceptable for you to vote Aye. Regions already have the power to change the voting system for their regional offices. They aren't tweaking them to be unfair now, are they?

No worries, it states in it that the region administers and certifies the results. The only way your fear would happen is if every region in unison forgot to open their voting booth in which case the feds could step in. But even then the regions still do the count so the SoFE only has to worry about The At-Large race and Presidential.

I'd say this is giving the SoFE a lighter load and by no means adding to his duties.

Now that that has been clarified I hope you support this Amendment.

While I very much support the concept behind this amendment, I agree that this clause is  vague regarding the standard by which an election is considered democratic.

I don't see how this will make Atlasia more interesting. Now, it could certainly make it more confusing.

It's no more confusing than how regions elect their regional officials already and already have the power to change their voting system for those offices. All this does is put the regional Senate election under that same administration and authority. Pretending this is complicated at all is absurd.

I don't see how it is confusing. The regions vote for a senator, the election is certified, the winners swear in.

Also, by having the regions run the elections it would likely lead to nice uptick in the number of people who actually show up to region elections.

I don't have a problem with regions running their own senate elections. I always wondered why we voted for our regional senators in a federal election voting booth anyway. Either I'm being short sighted, or I fail to see how things are complicated by this bill. Then again, I have faith in most regional governments that they are not corrupt enough to fudge election results. I also do not understand how they could fudge such numbers. Anyone care to explain?

If a region were to adopt a secret ballot, then we might have a problem with that.

Is there a way we can limit regions from doing that? Or if we turn the power over to them to run their own elections, we cannot have any strings attached? I agree we can't allow them to adopt a secret ballot because their results will always be scrutinized. I've always wondered what Atlasian elections would be like if votes weren't public, but it's impossible to do on a site like this.

If this is to pass, we probably are gonna need to limit regions from doing that and probably some other things too.

Tactical decision: Is the glass half full or half empty?

Do we say what can be done or what can't be done.

I think the latter is better:

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly

sounds good

Invalid Entry!

Abort   Retry  Cancel


Couldn't resist. :P

ok, I accept your amendment as friendly. Happy now?


*Hits Yankee with BK's gavel* :P

The amendment makes me feel a bit better. I think this is the most logical step in the election process. The only concern I have for it is turnout would be terribly low, but I hope if this amendment makes it through the regions, it will only increase participation in regional elections.

I object.

Why?

Maybe he wants regions to run their own presidential elections too? Now that would be a huge reform! I bet you'd salivate at the mouth, Marokai!

1. A region's governing body shall have the authority to determine procedure for administration of voting and certification of election results for their own Class A Senate elections in the months of February, June, and October.  A region's governing body shall have the authority to administer voting and certification of election results for Presidential elections consistent with federal election law in the months of February, June, and October.
 
2. A region's governing body may determine the means of election to Class A Senate election.

3. To ensure a fair process of election, any alternative system of voting chosen by the region's governing body for Class A Senate elections must be conducted in public and may not disqualify any candidate meeting the qualifications set in the Constitution.

4. If a region fails to open a vote for their Senator and President within 12 hours of when polls must open, a Federal Officer of the Executive Branch shall open the vote on behalf of the region.

Well this is hardly fair. :P

 A made a few minor clarifications to the text of my amendment to improve clarity. The substance hasn't changed, though.


Are you just putting this out there for discussion or are you offering it as an amendment?

Amendment...and discussion...

Sponsor Feedback: No Input

I think the amendment is good.

Are we talking about setting up an electoral college here? Because otherwise I don't see how the regions could administer the Presidential election.

I was going to ask that question.

Presumably the idea would be that each region counts their votes which are then presented to the SoFE to combine all the counts for the final vote.

...Which, unfortunately, is a really dumb idea. (And Duke knew I felt this way, because I posted this on the private forum. :P) I mean, Bgwah wanted to talk about complicated? That is unnecessarily complicated. I fail to see how it's any sort of reform, since it does nothing but confuse, and just adds extra work for all involved. Under no argument could you say the President is a regional office, unlike you could with a regional Senator, and thus allowing individual counts for President is just stupid.

Then there is no need to separate the Senate elections from the Presidential. Either we operate with one ballot for all races, or a separate one for federal and regional governments. I don't see how my amendment had anything to do with an electoral college, all it does is consolidate ballots, which is a good thing. The election would remain the same other than who opens the booth.

Regional Senators should be regional offices. Subject to regional control like any other regional office. They are only connected to the presidential election because they are considered federal offices. There's a perfectly good reason for regional senate elections to be separate from the Presidential election, there isn't a perfectly good reason for breaking the Presidential ballot down to the regional level. It is confusing and causes more work for no reason and will only serve to torpedo the other change it shouldn't be sunk by.

It's not like people don't already have other regional offices to vote for at the same time as the Presidential election.

Anyone who can say there is a serious argument in favor of separating Presidential elections from downballot races needs their head checked.

I would support having a ballot for President and a separate polling place for everything else in real life. I also wouldn't support allowing states to have their own campaign finance laws for Senate races and federal office. I'm fine with allowing different voting systems but not at the expense of turn out and simplicity.
 
To say regional Senators should be regional offices makes no sense. I am part of the federal government. I have no say in my regional government.

What you're doing is pointless and will only serve as an excuse for the overall Amendment to go down in flames. Which, frankly, I suspect is the point, since as usual it's strictly the JCP popping up in opposition to any proposed change to any part of Atlasia's structure.

Regions are perfectly capable of easily and efficiently counting an election for a position that is conducted exclusively within their borders. Breaking the Presidential election down that way but still maintaining a national popular vote as the way we elect the President is only needlessly complicated and makes extra work for all involved for no reason.


And we arrive at the fundamental disconnect. This is a game. Games are meant to be fun and remain consistently interesting. When they fail to be interesting, people change the rules to make it interesting again. We've changed the way we elect people in the past, yet now we seem forever frozen in the current system that absolutely nobody wants to change because it makes electioneering more difficult.
 

It's a change for electoral purposes. I should've been more specific.

I am pretty darn certain I voted for Jbrase because I liked this proposal and that I have a pretty clear and consistent record of reform. To attempt to turn a policy debate into deceitful partisan attacks is un-unlike you but is disconnected from reality at its core.

I have a serious complaint about the particulars of this proposal and like always, you ignore the argument and continue to repeat yourself over and over again. I wonder if it is some kind of strategy to make us so sick of your constant talking points recitals that we just go along with what you want hoping you'll shut up.

You want simple: one booth per region for all offices or one booth for the federal government and another for regional. Some claim they want to generate turn out in regional elections. My amendment actually guarantees that. The current text leaves possible the adverse effect of lower Senate election turnout.

I think considering the issues in the Southeast - one of the standards that needs to be explicit in any amendment like this is to ensure a uniform public or private voting system.

All opposition voices here are from the JCP. It is not disconnected from reality when it is an observable fact. It is also a fact that your Dear Leader has been a consistent thorn in the side of any reform attempt for my entire life in Atlasia, and only very reluctantly went along with the new Constitution last year. If you voted for Jbrase because you just <3 his proposal, you don't do a very good job of showing that since the very first thing you did in this thread is immediately oppose it.


I am merely arguing exactly what Bgwah did a few pages ago: It is needlessly complicated and doesn't make sense. It isn't extra consolidation, it's only senseless make-work that will almost assuredly torpedo the Amendment if it makes it to referendum. It makes no sense to break the Presidential election down to the regional level when it remain a national vote. That same argument is not the case for Regional Senate elections. If you want to break the national vote for President down to the regional level, you should fundamentally alter the way we elect the President entirely, which should be done separately.


By necessitating five different counts and additional make-work for the SoFE that has no need to actually happen.

What happened in the Southeastern? My amendment says in public.

I believe - the Senators from the SE might be able to enlighten us on this - I heard something about an amendment to allow the SE to hold secret ballots at the regional level?

1. Then the JCP knows what it is doing! Though considering Snowguy's most recent post in this thread you may want to revise your statement to be a little more, I don't know, truthful?

2. You can't say it makes no sense and conveniently ignore, again, as usual, my arguments, which happen to make perfect sense.

3. This amendment actually makes less work for the SoFE by allowing Governor's to count the votes. Not that the SoFE needs less work and apparently a deputy is required even for that.

He supports the unnecessarily convoluted amended version that will have more opposition for no reason. Hip-hip hooray.


It is not that difficult to grasp.

1. The President is elected by a national popular vote. Breaking it down to the regional level necessitates five different counts and then a combination of all the votes. The SoFE would then, if he was responsible at all, double check. This is extra work for no reason and doesn't make sense in the context of how we elect the President.

2. The regional Senator is elected within the boundaries of that region and thus, putting it under regional administration requires no extra work whatsoever and doesn't make anything more complicated because regions already hold separate unrelated elections in concert to the Presidential election anyway.


It is insanely naive and irresponsible to suggest that the SoFE should simply take the regions word for it without checking the numbers themselves. In practice it is exactly what Bgwah described in his opposition to the original version. (Which, ironically, was ridiculous an untrue, but suddenly becomes entirely true against your version.)

Marokai, take your pills, relax, and get it through your thick skull that I'm not bgwah, I don't always agree with bgwah, and, God forbid, possibly have my own opinions and policy proposals.

It is time I come clean. The extraordinary amount of legislation I've put toward this session: bgwah wrote it! I'm only doing what I'm told! Sorry everyone, I'm not even Napoleon, I'm a clone of bgwah mistakenly repackaged!

Please. We know you lost Marokai but you don't have to be a sore loser because people happen to have better arguments than you. And please continue to ignore the points I make over and over again. It really shows what you're working with up in that head of yours. I'm impressed!

For someone who bitches at me for allegedly being personal you're doing a remarkably good job at trying to only make this about me instead of responding to anything I'm actually saying about what you're proposing.

I have concerns over your proposal and am actually agreeing with Bgwah on something; being unnecessarily complicated is bad, and you're being unnecessarily complicated. Hell, if a region did change their voting system, you're asking a region to vote on regional and federal offices, with two different voting systems, in the same thread. I just don't understand the purpose of what you're trying to pass off here, and it doesn't make sense in the context of how we elect the President. That is all.

If the Senate wants to pass this version, go for it. But if there's any confusion or unnecessary extra work caused by it, don't be surprised when I say "I told you so." (Because you can rest assured I will be there to say "I told you so.")

You have yet to address my argument as to why the current proposal will not suffice. Is it, perhaps, too complicated for you? Or would you like to make another post about how I, bgwah, and the entire JCP are satanic monsters? Oh, that's right. I forgot that I am supposed to sit here and smile as you throw bombs around like a mad man.

Dude, aside from my usual comment about how I'm irritated at the JCP, I've done nothing but argue about the merits of the proposal at hand. It's not even my opinion, either. Considering the percentage of what I've dedicated in my posts here to the actual topic, it's objective.

Which, frankly, I've said my piece about. I can't be blamed if you preferred to accuse me of being some sore-lose madman in need of medication instead of respond to my argument against the amendment. If the Senate wants to pass this, go for it. If the Senate doesn't want to pass the amended version, also, super. All I care about it reform, and I desperately want to see any change at all. As the game's resident game reform freak, changes to the game that are as efficient as possible is my chief concern.

So I leave you guys to it. (And I hope that our back and forth has actually been useful to the others, since the Senate is hardly in a position to complain about something getting debate. :P)

I hope that the Senate will consider my proposal on its merits. A single ballot for elections would make voting simpler for our citizens and would increase turnout for downballot races. The current proposal might actually decrease turnout for the sake of making things interesting. Since less voters doesn't interest me ands shouldn't interest you, consider this amendment.

I'd like to also point out that post after post Marokai ignored almost everything I said, as is usual. You may not care but I personally find it "interesting".

The only amendment I know of is the one I offered two days ago in this thread, TO BAN SECRET BALLOTS. What are you talking about?

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
An Objection has been entered.


Senators, a vote is now ope on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

I mentioned an electoral college only because would need to decide how to tally the regional results.  Due to IRV, the results of a vote counted separately in each region would not be the same as the result if it were counted nationally.  So you could have votes counted in each region, and then the total number of each region's winner post-IRV calculation be added, with a national FPTP between up to five candidates. Or you could have an IRV last involves only those candidates that weren't eliminated in each region - which would mean a candidate could be counted at the national tally with votes from one region but not from another, even if the candidate had received votes in both regions before the regional IRV calculations.

Aye on the current amendment.

aye

Nay

Aye

Aye

Aye

I am afraid that (Napoleon's proposal) would just make things more complicated. The Senate races are already five separate elections and would remain five. The Presidential race however is one election that would be broken into five. 

So for your amendment I'll have to say not friendly.

There isn't a worse time to have a Session Time-out, then while voting. And I am logged in indefinately.


Aye for the second time. :P

At least I didn't imagine it... I can't keep an eye on everything :P

You had your eye on it long enough to see "secret ballot", but not the words "May not employ" earlier in the sentence? :P

I didn't read it, it came up in discussion...

What "issues" were you refering to then in the SE? That is what you iniated the discussion with.

What is this "SE" you guys keep bringing up?

Vote on passage of Amendment 44:31:

Aye (6): AHDuke99, Antonio V, bgwah, Jbrase, NC Yankee, and shua
Nay (1): Napoleon
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (3): Fuzzybigfoot, officepark, and Snowguy716.

The amendment is passed and regular debate resumes.

A vote on the next amendment will be held starting tomorrow morning. I don't want to hold them this close together or people won't realize it is a new amendment.

I misunderstood the proposal... carry on.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Senators, a vote is now open on this amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Abstain

I would like to see us consider adopting regionally-based districts to equalize the populations a bit. I say regionally-based because although this seems like common sense if we're using districts, certain folks *cough VERIN cough* had a fetish for making the most bizarre maps possible.

I'm not sure I'll introduce it here, though. It seems like something that should be a different proposal. Especially since it has nothing to do with 'empowering' regions.

Aye

Nay

Abstain. I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, I want to give regions the power to do what they wish with Presidential elections. However, I worry if we put into place some electoral college, people will find ways to manipulate it. It would make for more interesting elections though..

Actually this amendment will hold the vote to federal standards, this is just for ballot simplicity and helping urn out in regions while giving them more power in electing their senators.

Nay

Oh, I know. I just figured an electoral college would be the next step in this process. I'll sit on this for a minute and see if I decide to change my mind. I won't vote this amendment down whichever way I go.

As I said before, there is no ballot simplicity here. And even if for the sake of argument, there is, it comes at the cost of creating extra complication elsewhere. As a step to creating an electoral college system, it's fine, but as a way to elect a President through national popular vote, it is needless make-work.

nay

It..isn't really hard to add five numbers every four months. Even for the disabled.

abstain

Abstain


I'm leaning toward opposing this bill, anyways.

The amount of abstentions is just getting silly, now.

Current Status:

Aye (2): Napoleon and Snowguy 
Nay (3): Jbrase, NC Yankee and shua
Abstain (4): AHDuke99, Antonio V, bgwah and Fuzzybigfoot

Didn't (1): Officepark 

This ends tomorrow morning.

I honestly don' t know how to vote. I don't like to abstain, but I need more information on the two proposals to make a conscious choice.

Vote on Amendment 44:32:

Aye (2): Napoleon and Snowguy 
Nay (3): Jbrase, NC Yankee and shua
Abstain (4): AHDuke99, Antonio V, bgwah and Fuzzybigfoot

Didn't (1): Officepark 

With three Nays, two ayes and 4 abstentions at the expiration of time (10:49 am), the amendment has failed and debate shall proceed.

Is there anything more here, or is it final vote time?

I am preparing a report about this amendment. It may be up tonight. It may take two days.

Any way the vote could be stalled until this report is published? If not, I'd encourage Senator's to wait for it before voting, unless their mind is completely made up. Even though I'm not a Senator, I will say I'm still not completely convinced on a bill that would really shake things up, and would like to see this report before I personally made a decision.

Make that a Sunday. Emergency absence.

It is technically no longer Sundaybut here goes.

A report on turnout: federal senate elections vs. regional elections.

June 2011 Northeast Senate Race: 26 voters.
June 2011 Northeast Regional Elections: 14 voters.

June 2011 Southeast Senate Race: 13 voters.
June 2011 Southeast Regional Elections: 6 voters.

June 2011 Mideast Senate Race: 19 voters.
May 2011 Mideast Regional Elections: 10 voters, as the nearest regional election.

Going back further...

February 2011 Northeast Senate Race: 22 voters.
February 2011 Northeast Regional Elections: 21 voters. The only incident of comparable turnout.

February 2011 Southeast Senate Race: 15 voters.
February 2011 Southeast Regional Elections: 8 voters.

February 2011 Mideast Senate Race: 22 voters.
January 2011 Mideast Regional Elections: 17 voters.

Still a rather small sample size, I admit.

October 2010 Northeast Senate Race: 27 voters.
October 2010 Northeast Regional Elections: 16 voters.

October 2010 Southeast Senate Race: 19 voters.
October 2010 Southeast Regional Elections: 13 voters.

October 2010 Mideast Senate Race: 21 voters.
September 2010 Mideast Regional Elections: 15 voters.

I have gone back over an entire year of elections, using statistics from the Wiki or hand counting regional voting booths. What I find is that in not one election does regional election turnout surpass federal election turnout. In fact, in only one election was the turnout difference less than 5 voters. I did not take the time to calculate the difference between Pacific and Midwest regional elections because they are held in the same months as At-Large Senate seats, though I suspect if you compared the turnout in those regions' elections to either their regional Senate elections or the amount of voters in those regions who show up to vote in At-Large elections, you will see similar differences as the three regions data has been provided for.

To conclude this report, there is significant evidence that a national election is a bigger voter draw than a regional election. The reason for this is easy to explain. The Presidency in Atlasia, just like in real life America, brings out the most voters being the most prominent position. The partisan interests at stake in the Senate elections tied to the Presidency are affected but would be diminished if transferred to regional ballots. Regional elections are less of a draw because the balance of power in most regions is so that elections are not very competitive or are rarely competitive, and even when competitive, do not draw as many voters. No evidence is found that suggests transferring Senate elections to regional ballots would increase regional election turnout.

The results of this report indicate to me that this proposal's current form would diminish turnout for Senate races while, at best, insignificantly increasing regional election turnout.

Now, my proposed solution remains to place both Presidential and Senate elections on regional ballots. This would have the benefit of a coat-tail effect for downballot races, making it easier for voters to know who is running and for what offices, as they won't have to search for two separate threads. It is possible that these voters continue to neglect Gubernatorial and other Regional elections but the likelihood of that outcome does not exceed the likelihood that my proposed solution increases turnout for Gubernatorial and Regional elections without diminishing turnout in other elections.

Some have complained that my proposal would be "too complicated". I assure you that this is the standard reactionary reaction to any attempt at progress. While instead of one national voting booth and multiple regional voting booths, we would have 5 separate voting booths, complication would not arise. It would be, in fact, simpler for voters to only vote in one booth, as you only receive one ballot per election in real life as well. Further, the only nationalized race would be the Presidency, which requires only the addition of 5 numbers. We do not imagine this to be more difficult than sorting out votes for the various regional Senate races as 5 elections take place in one thread currently. Not to mention, the Wiki would be easy to update with Presidential results by region. ;D

As shown, Regional elections drew about 50% of the voters from Presidential/Senate elections for our most recent, June 2011. This is a crisis in development if it isn't already one. Our beloved game is dependent on elections, and as such, voter turn out.

It is with this presentation that I must ask this Senate to rethink their support for my proposal, and if not, their support for this amendment, which is certain to severely impact turnout in Senate races.

It has the potential to be complicated since there is a very long history of regional election administrators neglecting their duties and just plain not opening voting booths. You would almost certainly end up with regions voting for the Presidential elections at different times---and if you were strict and didn't allow this, some regions wouldn't get the full 72 hours or perhaps miss the election entirely. And that's not fair.

Having all five Senate elections together has worked mostly fine for about 7 years now. Don't fix something if it isn't broken.

Just a note - I think it'd be interesting to see how much turnout increased in regional elections if this passed. I think there would be a much more emphasis on them from the "party bosses" should Senate seats be involved, too.

Are there any other restrictions that should be put into clause 3? I was weighing requiring a referendum on any changes to the election method, but now I am thinking more that the regions should choose the process of how they allow their election system to be change.

Talking to yourself is fun, I guess. :P

Can we just get a final vote?

I just PMed BK about this and other matters. If he wants me too, then I can open a vote here. Otherwise it is up to him to do it with the new senate having began at noon.

With no debate in a really long time and final vote having been called, this bill is now at final Vote, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

AYE

Aye

Nay

Nay

Nay

Nay

Nay, nay, nay

Jesus, man, now need to go all excessive, there is already more then enough to fail this. :P

And a round of applause for the JCP, ladies and gentlemen. (And a standing-O for Snowguy, please! The Senator that changed from Aye to Nay!)

aye whatever

:'(

With 5 nays and 3 ayes, this bill has enough votes to fail. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

The regional senate seat process is clearly broken.  I don't think this bill will make it better.  As it is right now, only one region is competitive (the Northeast).

Valid points are made regarding indirect election of regional senators in that Atlasians don't vote in regional elections.

It is wholly unfair to subject half the senate to a full referendum by all Atlasians while the other half can be rushed into office by a few super active players.

I honestly didn't think that would be an issue... I thought the regions would keep similar systems to what we have now... but I think the right wants to push for indirect elections, which will hurt the senate.

If we had two federal legislative bodies, it might be different... but to give half the senators the exact same powers and responsibilities as the other half while only making them accountable to a tiny sliver of the electorate is unfair.

I have not been shy about my support for getting rid of regional senate seats altogether and making them all AL.  While I'd like to give regions the benefit of the doubt, I don't want this to become a system where a few good old boys decide who gets to be senator in 4 out of 5 regional senate seats.

just lobbing out attacks hoping one of them will stick?

Ah, I see you deleted that post now.

I deleted it in the hope that this wouldn't become a fight and I could just leave it at that. But you know what? I'll bite.

You've all become a horrible parody of yourselves. You're a left-wing version of the Populares and nothing more accurately describes you than that. You yourself openly admit to moving to a region to stack voting odds in Napoleon's favor. Napoleon openly admits to voting for BRTD solely because he wants people to be in power that support his agenda, as if that's not a silly shallow selfish reason. Your own President is quite literally laughed out of the for-profit university ban by you all for daring to suggest it should be more elaborate. And now, you unanimously vote down a Game Reform proposal.

Nothing, literally major change whatsoever, will ever get through your chokehold on the Senate. I remember a day when the JCP used to stand in stark contrast to the stubborn and old fashioned RPP, the stubborn, vicious, anti-reform party of the 2009 era. We all used to hate how they acted, and now you act the same.

Everything in this game is increasingly becoming a game of the JCP vs. everyone else. What do you guys even stand for anymore? As far as I can tell you don't stand for a goddamn thing, nothing aside from getting yourself into power, anyway.

The JCP used to be the party that bragged about their active citizens, that bragged about having the most ideas, that bragged about being the party of reform, but since late-last year, you've all become a hilarious hyper-partisan caricature of your former selves, preferring to be thuggishly hostile and dismissive of anything you don't come up with yourselves over being the calm and creative party of ideas you used to be.

It's nice to stand here and say, as Napoleon often does, that "well, why wouldn't I vote for someone who reflected my own interests?" But would the Senate really be a better place with 10 BRTDs? From the perspective of getting whatever the hell you wanted, maybe. But it wouldn't be a good Senate from a standpoint of activity or competence.

JCP dominance is not good for the game. Not from my feeble opinion, but from simple fact. You've become the anti-reform party. The pro-status quo party. The thuggishly hostile party, and the hyper partisan think-only-of-ourselves party. And you get away with it, because you have the numbers to get away with it. And it's almost as if you know this, so you flaunt it. You're the "neener neener" party. You're so much more flagrantly aggressive than you've all ever been before, and you feel no shame.

I can't imagine why any self-respecting person would be a member of your party. What you stand for is so thouroughly and empirically anti-thetical to progress, civility, and good government. You maintain your power through the sheer force of your monopoly. Does knowing you rule by leaving people no other choice make you all happy? I hope so, because you've got nothing else.

LOL.

This is fast becoming the JCP equivalent of Libertas' old penchant for "::)".

Get well soon Tmth.

all you've basically said, Marokai, is:

"Waah waah waaah.. I wanted to take my ball and go home but then the big meanie JCP boy brought two more boys to play in my place and they had their own ball!  Woe is me!"

The rest is just a bunch of hot air with the distinct aroma of bullsh**t.

Yes. Hyperpartisan JCPer Napoleon giving BRTD a third preference is destroying this game, not Marokai
 Blue's thuggish hostility.

Thank you.

Sorry for the interruption - I obviously posted that in the wrong thread.

Proceed. Or stop.

Ignoring the substance of what I say is a traditional JCP tactic. I'm glad to see it's still in use.

Or lack thereof?

Yes. I'm lacking in substance. Let's see how far that obviously untrue line will get you. Where are the JCP's wealth of game reform proposals, again?

I made proposals in this thread. I sponsored an amendment to reform the VP position that had support from the Game Reform Commission that couldn't pass because of your party's opposition. I have a host of OSPR amendments I'd like to introduce but before that I will see if they can be compiled with my upcoming OSPR amendment. The JCP and other reformers are hoping to amend the entire Northeast Constitution.

Your post lacks in substance considering the entire post was obviously untrue.

Snowguy, I thought clause 3 would have disallowed indirect elections under this amendment.

I thought the purpose of this bill was to increase participation in regional elections by allowing regions to control their own senatorial elections? Obviously, the information collected by Napoleon would show regional participation is lower, otherwise, what is the point of this bill?

I think the arguments in opposition make sense if we don't want to risk short-term deflation of regional senate participation, but I think in the long run, it may have been a good thing. As it stands, AL senators already face a different electorate than do regional senators. Perhaps this bill would further widen the gap, I don't know. In the short-term I concede it probably would. Long run, we will never know. Just my two cents, but I know no one really cares. ;)

As Justin Timberlake would say, it's dead and gone. And as Jay Z would say, on to the next one...

This is what I regret not having pointed out myself. I don't understand what point Napoleon hoped to get across with his weird 'research.' It proved nothing except that there is already a problem, which is partially what necessitated this Amendment in the first place. It's like he's trying to use the current situation as proof that a proposed solution that's never gone into effect before will be a failure. It makes no sense.

Senate turnout would go down. You would have to follow my proposal if you wished to achieve that goal.

This is guesswork. Your weird attempt at trying to prove something that doesn't exist yet wouldn't work is really silly. We can't say one way or another if it would reduce or increase turnout. My bet would be that people still would actually care about electing a Senator and would show up to vote.

The problem with your proposal is that it doesn't make sense. Trying to break up a national election into 5 different voting blocs for no other reason than you just want to is ridiculous.

And besides, not only that, but I would even say that, for the sake of argument, turnout in general would go down regardless. It would also be needlessly complicated, adding a layer of extra make-work that wouldn't be there otherwise just because you feel the need to continue tying the regional Senate elections and the Presidential elections together.

AND, would it kill you people to actually give it, I don't know, a try? We have nothing to lose here. If it turns out to be really bad for a couple of election cycles, you can turn right away and fix it later. We're not making life decisions we'll be stuck with for the rest of eternity. We're never going to make any changes if you guys are never willing to step outside your comfort zones.

I do beleive that there was only 1 competative At-Large seat, also. As you, BRTD and Duke were sure wins, and HCL wasn't far below that level. Maybe if turnout had been higher it would have gone down to three uncompetative seats.

If it is unfair, it is unfair because of the inherent nature of At-Large elections and the voting method used. It creates uncerntainty in the mind of the voter as to what effect his vote will have and it leads to a situation where each senator is elected by 1/5th (or somewhat less) of the vote. But each At-Large Senator has a choice to make, he can cater to that one 1/5th or he can cater to everyone. We have seen that doing the harder (the latter) isn't actually the best way to get elected/re-elected in At-Large elections, as the results last time proved. In Regional elections ironically, the ones who have broad appeal to everyone, usually do better then the partisans.

The problem is, you need to maintain the balance of power between regions and the popular majority and at the same time have a small game to work with. So creating two houses is unfeasible. If I have my history right, they used Districts for the Senators who were to represent the popular will (And for Senates 2-7, Class A was districts as well). The alleged unfairness is gone with that. However, they became a mess, and so they went to electing "the class B 5" nationwide, by proportional vote. Yes it is funky to have two different classes of representatives in the same body, elected differently, but it works for its intended purpose of balancing the two above mentioned interests.

Of course, you are free to disagree as to whether maintaining that balance is a priority. However, as far as the competativeness issue, there is simply no differential between the two systems which renders one more worthy compared to the other one. They both have pros and cons, but it is always interesting to note that opponents of regional seats always ignore the positives of Regional seats and gloss over the negatives of At-Large seats, as if they have no drawbacks, to setup a false superiority of the at-large seats. An all At-Large Senate would be more partisan, and likely less competently active. In Regional Seante seats, there has been a tendency to be more bipartisan and more active. I guess for the sake of driving up the reelection margins or something. I do it because I feel obligated to do so. ;) Whatever the reason it seems to work. Typically the ME has had some fairly good people untill HappyWarrior zone out and True Con seemed to not desire the seat he was appointed to. I am pretty sure, had events not intervened, the "elected" representative of the ME would have been active and engaged. The innactive NE Senators, were cycled out after one term, till now with Napoleon they have someone who cares about the job a lot. If something similar had occured in an At-Large seat, they probably would have won reelection, especially if supported by one of the large parties because usually they won't risk losing a seat and will sacrifice competence for partisan balance and by extention weak Senators have no incentive to retire cause they need only that small base to win. Even in a lopsided region, it is a taller order to get someone elected that has done a bad job, because there are enough people willing to defect and in some cases show interest in challenging for the seat that it is easier to defeat someone like that or incentivize them to retire. Atleast that is the case in the RPP dominated regions. It is amazing that even with, "the supposed competativeness of At-Large seats" the liklihood of a weak Seantor both running and winning is greater in them then in a majority of the Regional seats.


As far as the criticism of lack of fairness, you can choose as an at-large Senator who to cater to, and you have no obligation to cater to anyone else. Now when it comes to constituent services, you have a lot more people to potentially help, but the flip side is you have 5 other people competing to service that same guy, and so the demand is split up, thus requiring no excess labor on your part. I would think Regional Senators are first ones to get that kind of thing, unless it deals with a certain Senator's forte or whatever.  I frankly don't see the unfairness.

As for indirect election of Senators, no one suggested that in this thread that I can see, and though it has been discussed as a possibility before, I have never really considered it a reasonable option, other  than maybe "this could be interesting, we could jumpstart activity by creating a movement to overturn it", which usually get's a lot of "rather not". The idea of passing something just so that it can be removed seems to be too much for some. In terms of actual election methods and finding the best one, it is positively ludicrous.

Final vote on passage of the Empowering Regions in Elections Amendment:

Aye (3): AHDuke99, JBrase, and NC Yankee
Nay (5): bgwah, BRTD, Fuzzybigfoot, Napoleon, and Snowguy716
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Officepark


The Constituional Amendment, having not received 2/3rds of the Senate in the affirmative, has thus failed to pass.