ScottSurveys: The Regional Restructuring Amendment of 2012

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This poll will run for seven days, and you may change your vote.

[Napoleon]

Extremely negative.

Would be positive if it did not reduce the number of Senators.

[Donerail]

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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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

Just because it's a reform doesn't mean it should be enacted...

[Napoleon]

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.

[Frodo]

Positive -and it's been a long time coming. 

[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?

[Lambsbread]

Positive (Mideast)

[Napoleon]

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?

I do not understand what you are trying to say. When ilikeverin remarked on how Northeastern voters are under-represented in the Senate due to population imbalance you applied Northeastern At Large Senators to our delegation to argue it was fair. Either your argument here is full of crap or your argument there was full of crap because it is contradictory to say regions can't be represented by At Large Senators now.

Additionally, I do not understand why I should care less about reducing the voting public's influence in the lawmaking process by reducing seats than reducing regions' influence by not having an exactly equal number of seats for each side. I care more about the game being able to function properly than I do anything else.

As we all should.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[Donerail]

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.

[Napoleon]

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

I don't see why not.  I don't have many problems with Antonio's map, but eliminating Senate positions will have the exact opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve.

[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.

[Napoleon]

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.

[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.

[Napoleon]

Giving 45 people the same representation as 21 people is not fair. I can live with it, but it makes me angry when those same people then think they can reduce the people's representation further and make elections less competitive.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Never.  I was born a Mideast resident, and I will die a Mideast resident.

[Frodo]

Never.  I was born a Mideast resident, and I will die a Mideast resident.

'Die'? 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Never.  I was born a Mideast resident, and I will die a Mideast resident.

'Die'? 

In Atlasian terms

[Napoleon]

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.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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.

Of course, but I am also a Virginia by the Grace of God

And yeah, reducing the number of Senators is absurd.  So many awful parts of the Amendment to so few good parts.

[Napoleon]

Positive, but rather than eliminating seats their should be some provision by which the last two Senators are chosen in some other fashion. By lot. Elected by the two largest parties. Something.

Don't you expect highly predictable results with only four at large seats?

[Donerail]

Positive, but rather than eliminating seats their should be some provision by which the last two Senators are chosen in some other fashion. By lot. Elected by the two largest parties. Something.

Don't you expect highly predictable results with only four at large seats?

I don't know what I'd expect. I've only voted in three or four at-large elections. Now that I think about it, I don't know why the number of at-large seats should be the same as the number of regions. Seems to make more sense to index it to the number of citizens, with, say, one at-large Senator per 25.

I believe it's to balance regional and popular interests, with them being equally represented in the Senate.