ScottSurveys: The Regional Restructuring Amendment of 2012

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Neutral.


I hate reducing the number of Senate seats.


What this will come down to is what is the path of least resistance. If you want to reduce the number of regions do you reduce the Senate's composition, or do you give the finger to the Regional Rights movement?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Neutral.


I hate reducing the number of Senate seats.


What this will come down to is what is the path of least resistance. If you want to reduce the number of regions do you reduce the Senate's composition, or do you give the finger to the Regional Rights movement?

We don't have to reduce the number of Senators to reduce the number of regions.  As I've said, there was a proposal earlier to merge the Mideast and Pacific but let the regions keep their borders for representation purposes.  It's probably not going to be enacted because most Pacific and Mideast voters apparently do not want to be merged, but it's a much better idea than this garbage.

Would that be possible with Antonio's map, which is the one I was asked to introduce? If so, then fine we have three options to deal with implications for the Senate rather than just two obviously horrible choices.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Positive, because hey, it's reform actually being proposed.

"Proposal" is a low standard to use to form an opinion. There are a lot of bad reform ideas, reducing the number of Senate seats is one of the worst. As someone who has served two terms as a regional Senator, that body needs all the active participants it can get.

Not saying it's a good idea or it should be enacted, but I have a positive opinion because, despite the flaws, it's an actual serious proposal for reform, and can of course be amended.

If it didn't reduce the number of Senators it would be great but as it stands I believe it causes more problems than it solves and the sponsor appears unwilling to budge.

First off this is not my bill, it is Yelnoc's. We discussed the Senate and the implications and he expressed a desire to reduce them as a way to facilitate the map change. I introduced it, as he instructed. It is his job to convince me  and the rest of the Senate to support it. My sponsorship is merely for procedural purposes and as I said, I am neutral on this right now.

No, I will not budge on regional rights, especially because I don't beleive regional rights and the functionality of the game are mutually exclusive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never said regional rights and the functionality of the game are mutually exclusive. I do think rather strongly that reducing the number of Senators and the functionality of the game are mutually exclusive. I also believe that protecting the rights of regions is not reliant on an equal balance of regional and at large seats and you made this same argument against ilikeverin's amendment. If we are going to parade around with this regional rights thing then I demand the Northeast be given another Senator since the region is about twice as large as any other. My region has a right to equal representation.

My point with ILV was that the sum total effect of the NE's voting power in the At-Large seats ensured that it was at or near proportional representation in the Senate. This thus rendered his arguement that the Regional Senate seats deprived the NE of its just representation mute, because they already are or as near as equal as possible. It was a quick tactical point rather then a strategic arguement but it in no way contradicts my regional philosophy and the arguements I made on this matter here. In fact, it supports it because it seeks to destroy the ridiculous notion that the current setup is unfair. I made it because I wanted to illustrate that the current setup does enough to ensure proportionality in Senate representation.

Your region does have equal representation. As a region it has an equal vote with the other regions. As a population, it has a greater impact on the At-Large seats then any other region precisely because of its population's size. We have problems in this game, big problems that need to be solved, unfair representation isn't one of them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That shouldn't be much of a concern since you could just move states like many others have. I actually like that aspect of the proposal, it is reducing the number of Senators that should be a dealbreaker. I am surprised Yankee would advocate something this damaging to the Senate.

Also, according to the Constitution, each state affected has to vote on whether or not to accept the move to a different region. So Virginia could just as easily veto the atleast their portion of the map. 

For the 100th time, who the hell said I advocated this? You clearly don't understand my policy for introducing constituent legislation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It seems most of the objections center on the number of senators in the legislature -as opposed to which state should be in this or that region, which is my primary area of interest here. It shouldn't be too difficult then just to change the Midwest's current regional senator into another at-large senator.  I like the state configuration of this proposal, so as long as that doesn't change, I'm perfectly content with whatever compromise is reached.  

I think that is because it hits people on issues that are of most importance to them and thus the "Senate implications" are the center of disagreement. It is my opinion that were they to be resolved somehow, that the adjustments in boundaries would prove the most difficult to achieve, precisely because of the requirement that all of these states being moved have to approve the change.

I brought this up for two reasons. The first is because I requested by a constituent (Yelnoc) to introduce a map. It actually started out with him pming me a map. After consultations with him, through which he provided a framwork of what he desired, I formulated the text around that framework and introduced it (three days late, unfortunately ). My policy has been that if a constituent provides a complete text or the basic points to be made into a text, I will introduce it as desired, regardless of whether I support it or not.

The second is because of what has happened in the Midwest and Pacific. Something has to be done and discussions had to be commenced around a text, not a thread full of jumbled maps and expressions of prefered arrangements. We have done that before and ended up with nothing.

The problem with changing a Regional Senator in to an At-Large Senator is that we would go from 5-5 to 4-6. In my view it would be the equivalent of turning the US Senate into a House of Lords (or at least put it on the path to being such) with some of the legislating being shifted to the House of Representatives. The purpose of having both and in equal numbers in Atlasia is so that regional interests can check popular interests, without needing a bicarmeral legislature that we clearly couldn't sustain, just like the states check the interests of the popular majority in the US Congress with the Senate and House. Unlike the US Senate, we are not dysfunctional and nearly every reform desired has eventually been passed and typically by wide margins like "Fritzcare", which passed 8-2. The largest and most sweeping of the financial reforms were passed by yours truly, which were so tough that Marokai Blue thought they went to far on liquidity requirements. And unlike the US House which has been corrupted by gerrymandering and malaportionment, the At-Large seats do a good job at representing the popular majority. There were some in the former Regional Protection Party who wanted to make the Senate all Regional seats. I opposed this change unless a second chamber with an equal say in the legislative process was possible to represent the nationwide popular majority.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We could have 4 regional seats, 5 at-large seats, and make the VP a senator. Or if we don't like the even number, have 4 regional seats, 4 at-large seats, and make the VP a senator.

Such an alternative may be possible.

10 regional and VP!

Just as bad as 10 At-Large, but from the opposite direction. 50-50 or bicameralism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

10 regional and VP!

Just as bad as 10 At-Large, but from the opposite direction. 50-50 or bicameralism.

Under my plan: 3 regions, 6 senators + VP.

Under that system Napoleon would have case that the NE is treated unfairly and the number of seats would have to be apportioned based on population. Unless you have body or an arrangement that gives the popular majority an equal say in the legislative process, then you are indeed screwing the largest region.