NE2: Competitive Elections Amendment

[DKrol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Governor Blair, you have 48 hours to advocate for your bill. After that 48 hours, an additional 24 hours will be set aside for debate.

[Blair]

This bill speaks for itself, the situation we had in the last election made me realize how strange it was to have 5 active players running for 5 seats, yet for some reason we had to pull down the number to 3-meaning that 2 people would have been out of a job.

I'm of the view that regional assembly seats should be a good stepping stone, and seeing as the Northeast is the largest region in the game (IIRC) then we should open it up to as many players. Having 5 assembly members makes it much more interesting, and doesn't ruin the game if one person is ill/away etc.

It's a seasonable reform, and I hope the assembly will support it

[Enduro]

Governor, this bill has my support, it was fustrating during the last election knowing that in order to get elected 2 people wouldn't. I'm glad Poirot decided to run, and I'm glad we have the opportunity to prevent that from happening again.

[Clyde1998]

The act was created in response to the election that we had with only three candidates. I would support reducing the number of candidates to have a five seat assembly (to five), although I wouldn't support removing a reduction in the number of seats based on the number of candidates.

[pikachu]

I strongly urge the Assembly to vote against this amendment. While I do agree with the governor that the regional Assembly should be a stepping stone for higher offices, I also believe that elections should be, well, competitive. I think this would help new players get themselves a bit more involved in the campaign process, which they don't necessarily need to do as much now. (To give an example: In my first regular Assembly election, back in February, I did not send out a single PM, and only made two or three campaign posts. I still won because with 6 candidates, my victory was almost assured. That would not have happened if there rules were in place.)

Even if they lose, we normally have a vacancy open up, or at worst, players have to wait for 2 more months. Beyond that, we now have cabinet positions if they want to get into government right away. Assembly elections haven't been particularly interesting in the last few years. I think repealing this assures that we keep it that way.   


 

[Blair]

But, the problem is even with 5 players running for 3 seats that campaigning isn't actually that important. As sad as it is on Atlasia as Pikachu said you can win elections without campaigning-it's mainly about getting your party out to vote for you (obviously this has changed slightly as the parties have broken down)

It's just we're very unlucky to get 6 people running-even this time we had Kent running for the Senate as well, Enduro who was running for the first term and Poiriot running just to get everyone on the ballot.

I'd rather have 4 candidates running for 5 positions, than 5 candidates running for 3 positions. Having a 3 person assembly is something that we want to avoid at all costs-it's becomes boring, predictable and if one person's activity lags then you have a two person assembly. A 5 person assembly is vital to the political strength of the Northeast, I've never understand why an assembly should have to decrease the number of seats just to have 'an interesting election'

This was a reform carried out only a couple of months ago-and we've already seen in one election that it was an ill conceived reform. Do we really want another situation where a candidate has to run telling people not to vote for him?

[Clyde1998]

We shouldn't have positions open, if people aren't running for them - if there are only four candidates, there shouldn't be five seats; there should be four. We could change the act to have a clause that lowers the positions open to the number of people who are running (if it's below five).

[Blair]

We shouldn't have positions open, if people aren't running for them - if there are only four candidates, there shouldn't be five seats; there should be four. We could change the act to have a clause that lowers the positions open to the number of people who are running (if it's below five).

So we basically codify it into law that we keep lowering it-so if there's one candidate we have one seat?

 

[Clyde1998]

We shouldn't have positions open, if people aren't running for them - if there are only four candidates, there shouldn't be five seats; there should be four. We could change the act to have a clause that lowers the positions open to the number of people who are running (if it's below five).

So we basically codify it into law that we keep lowering it-so if there's one candidate we have one seat?

 

We could have a lower limit, but if there's only one candidate - why should five seats be open? How are you going to fill them, if people aren't standing for the seats in the first place?

[Blair]

I'd rather fill seats via appointment than have the situation we had last week where it was getting to stage where I was considering standing purely to get candidates elected to the Assembly.

We've always (before this changed) had a 5 seat assembly, and I'm optimistic about the future of the Northeast that we'd be able to support this

[Clyde1998]

I'd rather fill seats via appointment than have the situation we had last week where it was getting to stage where I was considering standing purely to get candidates elected to the Assembly.

We've always (before this changed) had a 5 seat assembly, and I'm optimistic about the future of the Northeast that we'd be able to support this

According to the wiki it used to be eight, then seven.

The question was more, who would be appointed if people aren't standing in elections where they're going to get a seat without trying?

Most active Northeasters sit in the Senate, do another role or don't want to be an officeholder, so it reduces the number of people who are able to run. Unless we bring in double jobbing - which may be against the constitution (I'm not 100% sure), then we might have a situation where we can't fill the Assembly.

I feel that we should have a five seat Assembly, but there are situations where it's not possible. Perhaps, we could introduce a clause where the voting requirements in the Assembly change, if not all of the seats are filled.

[Blair]

I'd be open to having it where the minimum is filled-so if 5 people run there should be 5 seats, but if it's 4 then it's 3 and so on.

It's just because what's most likely to happen is that the same 5 people will run again, as the terms are quite short. It seems unfair for 2 assembly members to get kicked out at the next election purely because there are not enough people on the ballot

[Clyde1998]

I propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Clark Kent]

I think Clyde's amendment is good. I like that idea.

[DKrol]

Kent, is that a formal second to the amendment?

[Enduro]

I'll second it.

[DKrol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We will now have a 24 hour vote on this amendment.

Aye

[Clark Kent]

AYE

[Clyde1998]

Aye

[Enduro]

Aye.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Aye

[Blair]

I'm happy with this bill

[DKrol]

With 5 ayes, the amendment is agreed to.

We will now move to a 24 hour vote on the bill as amended.

Aye

[Clyde1998]

Aye

[Clark Kent]

Aye