Northern Regional Committee

[cinyc]

So, if I'm correct, these are the proposals currently on the floor:


• 5 Seats, elected at-large
• 5 Seats, 3 from districts and 2 at-large
• 7 Seats, 4 from districts and 3 at-large

If there are no more proposals, I will call a principle vote tomorrow evening. There will also be a principle vote on whether or not to index the number of seats to activity at that time.

I think someone proposed bicameralism, and if we're going down the seats by district road, I'd like to propose 5 seats, 2 from districts and 3 at large.

[/]

So, if I'm correct, these are the proposals currently on the floor:


• 5 Seats, elected at-large
• 5 Seats, 3 from districts and 2 at-large
• 7 Seats, 4 from districts and 3 at-large

If there are no more proposals, I will call a principle vote tomorrow evening. There will also be a principle vote on whether or not to index the number of seats to activity at that time.

I think someone proposed bicameralism, and if we're going down the seats by district road, I'd like to propose 5 seats, 2 from districts and 3 at large.

Just considering the shape of our map, three or more districts is much easier to draw than two (regardless of population fluctuations), but whatever floats your boat...

I recommend holding the first principle vote to determine whether the legislature is all at-large, all districted, or a combination of both. The second vote should be whether to index the number of seats based off of activity, and the third should be to determine the number of seats and how they will be indexed if necessary.

[cinyc]

Just considering the shape of our map, three or more districts is much easier to draw than two (regardless of population fluctuations), but whatever floats your boat...

I recommend holding the first principle vote to determine whether the legislature is all at-large, all districted, or a combination of both. The second vote should be whether to index the number of seats based off of activity, and the third should be to determine the number of seats and how they will be indexed if necessary.

I'm worried about having a do-nothing one-party Assembly like the current Northeast Assembly.  The more at large seats we have, the more likely it is that Northerners of minority parties and independent Northerners have no chance of being elected.  A 3 regional/2 at large Assembly pretty much guarantees 4 seats for the dominant party.  And I don't want to increase the number of seats above 5.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

So, if I'm correct, these are the proposals currently on the floor:


• 5 Seats, elected at-large
• 5 Seats, 3 from districts and 2 at-large
• 7 Seats, 4 from districts and 3 at-large

If there are no more proposals, I will call a principle vote tomorrow evening. There will also be a principle vote on whether or not to index the number of seats to activity at that time.

May I ask who made the first and third proposals? I think a bit more debate before the principal vote would be good to help make any additional arguments for and against each of them.

I'm also not quite sure how we could vote on whether or not to index the number of seats if we've already decided how many seats there will be...

Thanks!

i propose a mixed-member system with three members elected in first-past-the-post districts and additional members added as needed to make the assembly roughly proportional

example:

district 1: lab candidate 5, fed candidate 4
district 2: lab candidate 6, fed candidate 4
district 3: lab candidate 5, fed candidate 4

would end up with three directly-elected labor representatives and two additional federalist representatives

[Kingpoleon]

I believe the second one posted by Truman is the best option and the only one suggested. As the author of it, I ask that we vote for it by unanimous consent. This is the best we can do for now, and while I agree with the principle of bicameralism and voting for something at the same time, I cannot believe that such a system would work right now. I would be perfectly fine with this being easily amendable in case activity increases in the future.

[/]

So, if I'm correct, these are the proposals currently on the floor:


• 5 Seats, elected at-large
• 5 Seats, 3 from districts and 2 at-large
• 7 Seats, 4 from districts and 3 at-large

If there are no more proposals, I will call a principle vote tomorrow evening. There will also be a principle vote on whether or not to index the number of seats to activity at that time.

May I ask who made the first and third proposals? I think a bit more debate before the principal vote would be good to help make any additional arguments for and against each of them.

I'm also not quite sure how we could vote on whether or not to index the number of seats if we've already decided how many seats there will be...

Thanks!

i propose a mixed-member system with three members elected in first-past-the-post districts and additional members added as needed to make the assembly roughly proportional

example:

district 1: lab candidate 5, fed candidate 4
district 2: lab candidate 6, fed candidate 4
district 3: lab candidate 5, fed candidate 4

would end up with three directly-elected labor representatives and two additional federalist representatives

Yes, but there would be no way to determine which Federalists actually win the two additional seats under this system.

To address cinyc's concerns, having three districted seats and two at-large ones would in no way guarantee a Labor supermajority. Labor votes are much more spread out than one would initially think; I looked back at the three-district plan I proposed earlier and Labor doesn't have a majority in even one of the three districts (Labor controls exactly 50% of the votes in two of the districts and 47% in the other one). Considering that using STV to elect two candidates basically guarantees one seat for Labor and one for the Federalists, it's literally just as likely that we end up with a 4-1 Federalist legislature as it is that we end up with a 4-1 Labor legislature.

I second Kingpoleon's proposal and move for an immediate vote for the three district/two at-large plan. We really should get moving.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

As a general principle, it's probably best that we try to keep the Assembly system as simple as possible.

Speaking as a private citizen, I'd rather that all five members are elected via proportional representation in a unicameral legislature.  If we need to have districts, then at the very least we should limit how often a person can change from state to state.  Drawing competitive districts can be enough of a hassle; we wouldn't want people flowing in and out of districts just to grab seats for a certain party.

[/]

As a general principle, it's probably best that we try to keep the Assembly system as simple as possible.

Speaking as a private citizen, I'd rather that all five members are elected via proportional representation in a unicameral legislature.  If we need to have districts, then at the very least we should limit how often a person can change from state to state.  Drawing competitive districts can be enough of a hassle; we wouldn't want people flowing in and out of districts just to grab seats for a certain party.

I would agree with the proposal to limit the number of times one can move from state to state. We could also insert a provision stating each citizen must vote in the district they were in when the current districts were drawn (with people moving from other regions being able to vote in whatever district they moved to, of course).

Drawing fair districts would in no way be a hassle; the ones I created took about five minutes each and, as shown, none of them contain an electorate that has a majority identifying with a single party. Drawing districts really wouldn't cause any trouble; it would rather simply add excitement to the game and give something interesting for the legislature to do. It's healthy to have an electoral system that's different from the one used by the federal government, but at the same time still very simple and easily manageable.

[Kingpoleon]

As a general principle, it's probably best that we try to keep the Assembly system as simple as possible.

Speaking as a private citizen, I'd rather that all five members are elected via proportional representation in a unicameral legislature.  If we need to have districts, then at the very least we should limit how often a person can change from state to state.  Drawing competitive districts can be enough of a hassle; we wouldn't want people flowing in and out of districts just to grab seats for a certain party.

My only rule for districts would be that nobody who has moved states under a month before the election could run for office in a regularly scheduled election. It's pretty hard to prevent gerrymandering, but I trust no Assembly would even attempt it. If it starts up, I would try to fight it.

[Maxwell]

I'm not a member of this committee, but I'm against districts and think that at-large elections for assembly is the best way to go.

[Blair]

I'm in favour of at-large elections; districts won't work on such a small scale imo

[Kingpoleon]

I don't like electing multiple members at a time. It feels largely undemocratic to allow the second and third and fourth and fifth place winners to get a seat. Perhaps we could do five at-large seats and elect them for three month terms but stagger the elections so no more than two people are elected at once.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I'm in favour of at-large elections; districts won't work on such a small scale imo

This is also a concern of mine.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I'm not a member of this committee, but I'm against districts and think that at-large elections for assembly is the best way to go.

FWIW, Maxwell, I believe it was you who succeeded me as Emperor of the former IDS when the region was experimenting with districts.  Do you recall if it was successful or popular?

[cinyc]

Yes, but there would be no way to determine which Federalists actually win the two additional seats under this system.

To address cinyc's concerns, having three districted seats and two at-large ones would in no way guarantee a Labor supermajority. Labor votes are much more spread out than one would initially think; I looked back at the three-district plan I proposed earlier and Labor doesn't have a majority in even one of the three districts (Labor controls exactly 50% of the votes in two of the districts and 47% in the other one). Considering that using STV to elect two candidates basically guarantees one seat for Labor and one for the Federalists, it's literally just as likely that we end up with a 4-1 Federalist legislature as it is that we end up with a 4-1 Labor legislature.

I second Kingpoleon's proposal and move for an immediate vote for the three district/two at-large plan. We really should get moving.

Controlling at least 47% of the voters plus, in Labor's case, liberal-leaning independents will lead to that party winning all district elections if they are anywhere close to organized.  It will inevitably lead to 3 regional elections that look like what our Senate elections currently are and ultimately will be - one party coronations of the majority party's candidate with no or token opposition.  Right now, why should I or anyone who is not Labor bother running for Senate?  There is no conceivable path to victory.  Your proposed system essentially makes all but one of the regional elections the same.  And if multiple non-majority party and independent candidates, realizing they can't win their regional election, try to run in the measly 2 seat "at large" election, it's possible that the majority party wins ALL the seats because of vote splitting.  The Northeast Assembly pretty much got that way, with nearly full Federalist control, due to vacancy appointments, and it is one of the worst Assemblies we've ever had in terms of activity.

I don't like electing multiple members at a time. It feels largely undemocratic to allow the second and third and fourth and fifth place winners to get a seat. Perhaps we could do five at-large seats and elect them for three month terms but stagger the elections so no more than two people are elected at once.

Minority party members and iindependents not beholden to the majority party, whatever that may be, have little chance of winning any office in any first-past-the-post system.  You might as well move regions or join the majority party if you want to serve in government, because you can't win a Senate seat and couldn't win a regional seat under that system.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would prefer the entire Assembly to be elected at-large, for simplicity's sake. Districts tend to be less representative than PR elections, no matter how well the lines are drawn; not to mention, it makes it harder for third parties and independents to get into office.

Anyhow, I will be out of town until Tuesday afternoon, so Cinyc will be Acting Chairman until then. I posted a Leave Of Absence on the Government Board, but I thought I'd reiterate it here just to be safe.

[cinyc]

As Harry said a few days ago, and given the motion on the floor to proceed to a vote, we will hold two votes shortly, one on the shape of the legislature, and the other on whether to index the number of seats to activity.  Here is a list of the proposed legislatures.  Please let me know if I missed anything. 

Question 1: What form should the North's legislature take:
[ ] 5 seats; elected at-large
[ ] 5 seats; 2 at-large and 3 regional
[ ] 5 seats; 3 at-large and 2 regional
[ ] 5 seats; mixed-member system with 3 First Past the Post and 2 proportional
[ ] 7 seats; 4 at-large and 3 regional

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If I do not hear objections before Noon EST tomorrow, we will proceed to a vote starting some time tomorrow afternoon.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Not really sure how this would work.

[cinyc]

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Not really sure how this would work.

It would work like it does in the current Northeast.   In the Northeast, if there are fewer than 5 declared candidates, the size of the Assembly becomes 3 instead of 5.  As far as I know, we never had to shrink the Assembly since the constitutional provision creating this system was passed, even though the rule initially required 6 candidates for 5 seats.  

Whether we'd shrink to the next odd or even number will be subject to further discussion if it passes.

[cinyc]

Hearing no objection from the members of this committee, we will now proceed to a vote on the two questions on the floor: 

Question 1: What form should the North's legislature take:
[ ] 5 seats; elected at-large
[ ] 5 seats; 2 at-large and 3 regional
[ ] 5 seats; 3 at-large and 2 regional
[ ] 5 seats; mixed-member system with 3 First Past the Post and 2 proportional
[ ] 7 seats; 4 at-large and 3 regional

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

This vote will be open for 24 hours.

[cinyc]

Question 1: What form should the North's legislature take:
[1] 5 seats; elected at-large
[3] 5 seats; 2 at-large and 3 regional
[2] 5 seats; 3 at-large and 2 regional
[ ] 5 seats; mixed-member system with 3 First Past the Post and 2 proportional
[ ] 7 seats; 4 at-large and 3 regional

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[X] Yes
[ ] No

[Kingpoleon]

Question 1: What form should the North's legislature take:
[5] 5 seats; elected at-large
[1] 5 seats; 2 at-large and 3 regional
[3] 5 seats; 3 at-large and 2 regional
[4] 5 seats; mixed-member system with 3 First Past the Post and 2 proportional
[2] 7 seats; 4 at-large and 3 regional

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[X] Abstain

[/]

Question 1: What form should the North's legislature take:
[5] 5 seats; elected at-large
[1] 5 seats; 2 at-large and 3 regional
[3] 5 seats; 3 at-large and 2 regional
[4] 5 seats; mixed-member system with 3 First Past the Post and 2 proportional
[2] 7 seats; 4 at-large and 3 regional

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ ] Yes
[X] No

[Blair]

Hearing no objection from the members of this committee, we will now proceed to a vote on the two questions on the floor: 

Question 1: What form should the North's legislature take:
[1 ] 5 seats; elected at-large
[ 4] 5 seats; 2 at-large and 3 regional
[2 ] 5 seats; 3 at-large and 2 regional
[ 3] 5 seats; mixed-member system with 3 First Past the Post and 2 proportional
[5 ] 7 seats; 4 at-large and 3 regional

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ ] Yes
[x ] No

This vote will be open for 24 hours.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Question 1: What form should the North's legislature take:
[2] 5 seats; elected at-large
[4] 5 seats; 2 at-large and 3 regional
[3] 5 seats; 3 at-large and 2 regional
[1] 5 seats; mixed-member system with 3 First Past the Post and 2 proportional
[5] 7 seats; 4 at-large and 3 regional

Question 2: Should the North's legislature be indexed to activity:
[ x ] Yes
[    ] No