SENATE BILL: Empowering Regions in Elections Amendment (Failed)

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

I object.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

Amendment...and discussion...

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

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

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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!

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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".

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Napoleon]

Aye

[Napoleon]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

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

[Napoleon]

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

[Napoleon]

Make that a Sunday. Emergency absence.

[Napoleon]

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.

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.

[Napoleon]

Can we just get a final vote?

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Napoleon]

LOL.

[Napoleon]

Get well soon Tmth.

[Napoleon]

all you've basically said 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.