The Advocate: Lincoln Laughingstock: Is This Really the End? OP-ED

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

PUP Schism?

The once dead Labor Party has suddenly became a thriving and growing political party. This occurred in less than a week, which begs the question: Were people simply disillusioned with PUP, or were their reasons for leaving much more sinister?

OP-ED - Should we be concerned about the vulnerabilities of our electoral system?

Given the midterm vote-counting mess that happened recently, how safe are our votes actually? While Peebs didn't intend to cause confusion or make a mistake, it happened regardless. What if someone who wasn't as well intentioned as Peebs became the tabulator of election results? We need safeguards against single person tabulation. I call on our Congressmen/women to lead the way in protecting our democracy against voter fraud - regardless if the fraud is committed in human error or for partisan reasons.

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

Explosive Article about the Federalist Party to be released tomorrow!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Typically speaking, we have mutliple people calculating results. That is why we knew immediately something was wrong. We had various counts. The best solution for this to have updated trackers in the various news outlets and that way you can discover invalid votes as you go and have a public count. The Party's also typically maintain counts as well, though typically just first preferences.  

It took me a while but one night (I think last Monday) when I should have probably been doing something else like signing bills, I created a count of my own, and posted it in a couple of places.

It is a bit rough math wise and the decimals are different, but the results are the same, as the actual for realz count:

Count 1.
YT 15       Elected
Fhtagn 13   Elected
Pericles 11
Jimmy 11
Lechasseur 10
OSR 10
Vern 10
Razze 9
Weatherboy 9
Peebs 6
AdamEvans 3  Eliminated
Fillinovich 3 Eliminated
MB 2  Eliminated


Count 2
YT 15       Elected
Fhtagn 13   Elected
Pericles 11
Jimmy 11
Lechasseur 11 (Windjammer)
OSR 10
Vern 11 (Thumb)
Razze 11 (Sestak and Skunk)  
Weatherboy 10 (Fillinovich)  
Peebs 9 (AdamEvans, Razze, Peebs)

Count 3: YT's Surplus 3 Votes
YT 12       Elected
Fhtagn 13   Elected
Pericles 11.4
Jimmy 11.4
Lechasseur 11
OSR 10.4
Vern 11.8  
Razze 11  
Weatherboy 10.4
Peebs 9.4  


YT Surplus (15 votes) = 3 votes
Vern 4/15=.26666 x 3 = 0.8  
Jimmy 2/15=.13333 x 3 = 0.4  
OSR 2                 = 0.4
Peebs 2               = 0.4
Pericles 2            = 0.4
Weatherboy 2          = 0.4
Exhaust 1

Count 4 fhtagn's Surplus
YT 12       Elected
Fhtagn 13   Elected
Pericles 11.5538
Jimmy 11.4769
Lechasseur 11.1538
OSR 10.706  
Vern 11.8  
Razze 11.0769  
Weatherboy 10.4
Peebs 9.6307  

Fhtagn Surplus (13 Votes) = 1 vote
OSR 4 /13 = .3076 x 1 = .3076
Pericles 2/13 =         .1538
Peebs 3/13              .2307
Jimmy 1                 .0769
Lech 2/13 =         .1538  
Razze 1                 .0769

With the lowest votes, Peebs is eliminated, Vern1988, Pericles, Jimmy, Lech, Razze, OSR and weatherboy are elected without quota.

[Poirot]

It's also part of the role of the Deputy Secretary of Elections to watch for an accurate vote count. The law say dthe Deputy Secretary of Elections may double check the Secretary's work.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260024.msg5669027#msg5669027

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

Federalist Scandal?

President North Carolina Yankee surprised, Pericles alarmed yet vindicated at allegations.

According to an anonymous source, a Federalist pressured them into voting for MB, the Labor Party Candidate for Lincoln Senate. Looking at the contents of the message, which were generously provided to us by said anonymous source, most language does not seem threatening, yet the subject line "Change your vote" followed by the starting sentence, "Change your vote..." appears suspect.

The anonymous source states that as a new citizen of Atlasia, when an experienced and long time Federalist citizen sent them a message telling them to change their vote, they felt pressured to do so even though the language was not necessarily threatening in and of itself.

President North Carolina Yankee acknowledged that the Senate race was close, explaining, "This undoubtedly left a lot of voters having to make a tough choice and as well as some other folks trying to advocate for their preferred outcome."

Additionally, President North Carolina Yankee condemned any instances of voter intimidation or pressure, declaring, "It is not Federalist policy to 'pressure' anyone to vote a certain way. If there is a specific case where someone engaged in intimidation or pressure tactics, it needs to be addressed"

PUP leader Pericles was aghast at the allegations of voter pressuring, exclaiming, "I wasn't aware of that incident... [it's] alarming, though I don't know what... happened."

These allegations only add fuel to the flames, possibly legitimizing Pericles' point that the Labor Party is just a pawn of the Federalist party trying to split the left.

President North Carolina Yankee vehemently denies involvement in misconduct or in the Labor Party apparatus. One of the Labor Party's key figures, Sestak, did not respond when asked for comment.

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

UPDATE: MB has issued a statement regarding the allegations:

"I wholeheartedly condemn any allegations of voter intimidation. This was a rogue action that definitely did not receive my permission. While certain Federalists did help on my campaign, we went in different directions after the election and there is absolutely zero Federalist involvement in the current Labor Party."

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have repeatedly told, urged and insisted that voters not be contacted after their votes were cast.

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

Polls show tight race
NorthCarolinaYankee/Dfwlibertylover in the lead with 33.12% of the vote

In alarming news for the NorthCarolinaYankee/Dfwlibertylover campaign team, they hold less than a 6 point lead in the presidential race. Additionally, two left wing candidates, Weatherboy/MB and MikeWells/Razze, when their vote share is combined make up a majority of voters.
Neither leftist candidate has managed to pull ahead of the other by a decisive margin, Weatherboy/MB at 27.57% and MikeWells/Razze at 24.12%

Undecideds could sway the election
With 12.19% still undecided, the presidential race teeters on a knife's edge.

A landslide election is nearly impossible given today's political climate, and this election is shaping up to be very tight. Can PUP and Labor get their masses of semi-active members to vote, or will the Federalists' status quo win another term?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Margin of error ± 5.6 with 95% confidence

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Before you spin, be sure to consult Truman's Guide to Interpreting Polling Data in Atlasia^TM (patent pending):

[Terry the Fat Shark]

A landslide election is nearly impossible given today's political climate,

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

A landslide election is nearly impossible given today's political climate,

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

Race tied as first day of voting begins to come to a closePresidential Race looks to be very tight

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Weatherboy/MB leads as first day of voting begins to come to a close, 50.6 % to 49.4%Presidential Race looks to be very tight

fake news

Yankee led all day and now it's tied

there are 2 invalid voters on the labor side though as well

[MAINEiac4434]

I count 41 votes for WB. Whose votes are invalid?

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I count 41 votes for WB. Whose votes are invalid?

Falloutboy97 doesn't have enough posts (you have to have 10 posts in 8 weeks) and Ishan/McGinty posted a ballot earlier and then deleted it and re-posted it, which makes their invalid as well (screenshot was in another thread)

[MAINEiac4434]

I count 41 votes for WB. Whose votes are invalid?

Falloutboy97 doesn't have enough posts (you have to have 10 posts in 8 weeks) and Ishan/McGinty posted a ballot earlier and then deleted it and re-posted it, which makes their invalid as well (screenshot was in another thread)

I didn't count your vote. What is it, 39-39?

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I count 41 votes for WB. Whose votes are invalid?

Falloutboy97 doesn't have enough posts (you have to have 10 posts in 8 weeks) and Ishan/McGinty posted a ballot earlier and then deleted it and re-posted it, which makes their invalid as well (screenshot was in another thread)

I didn't count your vote. What is it, 39-39?

39-38 ftm but I think someone else is voting right now

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

Lincoln Laughingstock: Is This Really the End?

JaydonBrooks, Staff Reporter


Chicago, Lincoln Region, Atlasia - Not one, not two, but all three of Lincoln's local representatives were recalled only a little while ago. This is and should remain humiliating for Lincolnites everywhere. How is is that Lincoln, once one of the most active regions in Atlasia has come to this?

Is it a failure of voters? Clearly not, given that they voted to recall their representatives in the Lincoln Assembly in overwhelming numbers.

Can we really blame it on real life issues? These jobs come with responsibility to remain active, and if you can't handle that, you should step down, barring any absences that absolutely cannot be avoided (i.e. power outages, natural disasters, etc.). To not do so is a travesty to all Atlasian citizens. Yet somehow I don't remember hearing about the millions of tornadoes and hurricanes striking the US.

Regardless of blame, it's clear that the cycle of inactivity is beginning all over again. Only 2 candidates have declared for the Lincoln Assembly.

I am not one to make apocalyptic predictions, but I will tell you this: get people engaged.

This is for the future of our country, Atlasia, not just for Lincoln's future.

Lincoln's demise should matter to the rest of Atlasians.

Why?

Because it could happen to your region next.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is not unique to the Lincoln Assembly. The problem exists all over in terms of people taking office and then doing little to offer debate/discussion etc.

I hate to say this is generational but I think there is a reduction in conceptualization of what activity looks like because it has been so long since we have seen the acceptable levels or at least what I would consider to be such.

Inactivity is contagious also.

An inactive speaker means the whole legislature is going to fail because no one is keeping the trains running on time. That is why I have always stressed, ignore the labels and find the best administrator and most active at that, who can keep the trains running on time regardless of party. It does your side no good to advance your cases if you put someone in there simply because of party and then the legislature shuts down. This has for years been one of my biggest areas of disagreement with Adam Griffin whose rigid partisanship is well established, but for me it is just plain common sense.  You cannot pass a regional health care law for instance if the Speaker is incompetent or inactive.

But it is not just about having an active administrator, because once you have one, you have the age old problem of leading a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. There has to be a collective understanding, that I will engaged on this person's bill so that they will engage and debate mine when it comes up. There has to be an expectation of them introducing legislation for instance so that such a dynamic comes into play.

If everyone is inactive it tends to create an incentive to be inactive also or maybe it is precluding progress and people get discouraged and become inactive.


I think it comes down to several key facets:

1. Competent Chamber administration
2. Accountability (recalls/expulsion)
3. Engaging with new people and mentoring them on what acceptable levels of activity are so they aren't copying what they see and picking up bad habits
4. The SoIA engaging with the Governor/legislature to make sure that all avenues for action (activity) are being pursued in terms of Federal laws/programs.
5. Regular Interaction with the Game Moderator to react to problems and respond to the consequences of previous actions.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It's extremely difficult to have a productive dialogue around inactivity, in part because the word itself has been cheapened by years of partisan warfare to where it becomes shorthand for the opposition party, in part because it's difficult to have a productive dialogue around anything when the well of public discourse has been poisoned by the hateful, dehumanizing rhetoric currently in vogue.

I'll preface this by saying I basically agree with everything Yankee said, so this is intended as an addendum, not a rebuttal.

I've been involved in this game, in one capacity or another, for almost four years. In that time, I don't think we have ever been in a place where the entire system has experienced sustained activity for more than a few weeks. Part of that is systemic, part of it is cultural, and sometimes simply dumb luck that grinds the gears to a halt. At this point, I frankly no longer trust the 'traditional' remedies for inactivity, because they simply have not produced sustained results. If your patient needs an emergency operation every month to keep him alive, it's time to ask what is wrong with the treatment plan, and maybe time as well to take a step back and assess whether your expectations for 'recovery' are reasonable.

From my time in the Mideast Assembly, to the Senate, to the ConCon, and most recently as prime minister in Fremont, we have always had legislators who inhabit a middle ground between the truly inactive (the Fairbols and Roy Barneses who just disappear and leave everyone in the lurch) and the super-human posters who hold down a cabinet position, a seat in the Senate, two or three regional offices, and manage to church out 40-some bills in an afternoon. They may not be prolific bill writers, and they may not have an expert's knowledge of the finer points of policy, but they consistently show up for votes, contribute feedback, and are at least a regular presence in debates. I don't think RFayette authored a bill the entire time he was in the Fremont legislature —but he rarely missed a vote, he ran in the elections, and he did his job. Shaming these legislators as inactive is not helpful, and does nothing to encourage sustainable activity. If someone is actually neglecting their duties, that's one thing —but if they just don't have a lot to say, we need to understand that not everyone is a policy wonk, but may still have something to offer.

We need to understand that the majority of those who play this game are not here to write a doctoral thesis on the finer points of the U.S. tax code. Wonkishness in this game often functions as a kind of elitism, with a small circle of posters who care very deeply about policy insisting that everyone share their pet obsession and denigrating the hoi poloi as ignorant and their contributions not worth entertaining. This attitude drives people away, and is frankly unrealistic in its conception of activity. That's not to say we shouldn't strive to be thorough or more nuanced in our approach to policy questions; but we do need to be reasonably accommodating of those whose knowledge of a particular area is more basic.

The Lechausseur recall affair actually concerns me quite a bit, because it seems to represent an uncompromising definition of activity that turns on anyone who falters even for a moment. I don't know what discussions may have taken place behinds the scenes before the recall petition was introduced, but frankly, nine days seems a very short time to be calling for someone's dismissal from office. I'm not saying we should give someone the benefit of the doubt indefinitely—eventually, if someone is not able to be present, something needs to be done—but I do think we need to retool our expectations, understand that sometimes outside circumstances prevent a player from being present, and assess whether action is really necessary before plunging ahead with something as serious as a recall.

To change tack somewhat abruptly, I don't think you can talk about inactivity without also taking into consideration the tone of the game. Yankee made the point in his first presidential campaign almost two years ago now, and it bears repeating: this game is fueled by voluntary participation, and if people are made to feel unwelcome, they are not going to stick around. I don't know what people who throw around phrases like "human scum" and others I can't repeat without violating the TOS think they are achieving, but if the goal is to drive people away from the game, it's working.

These are more musings than anything—I've no idea what they imply as far as a course of action, and anyways somebody else is going to have to do it, because I've no more energy to keep throwing myself at the same problems over and over as I would have a couple of years ago. That won't stop people from reading a nefarious partisan agenda into it, but so it goes.

So yeah, in addition to Yankee's list (which is spot-on), I'd include

     • don't be an *ssh*le
     • learn to work with and combine the strengths of different kinds of active players
     • don't be an *ssh*le

No-one will listen, of course, and in fairness my thoughts are disorganized and probably unintelligible at this hour; but that's my two cents. Those who disagree violently, as they inevitably will, can take comfort in the knowledge that I have every intention to never run for office again, at least not before the very distant future, and so these ramblings of a weary citizen can be safely ignored.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's extremely difficult to have a productive dialogue around inactivity, in part because the word itself has been cheapened by years of partisan warfare to where it becomes shorthand for the opposition party, in part because it's difficult to have a productive dialogue around anything when the well of public discourse has been poisoned by the hateful, dehumanizing rhetoric currently in vogue.

I would disagree to an extent. Inactivity can become a political issue that is campaigned and ran on yes with the hope of establishing a minimum standard that if fall below this you will lose votes. That is the way it is suppose to operate in theory. However, there is the impact of machines and voters such voting back in the same people because they were told too and this is certainly probably a substantial concern as to the effectiveness of "elections as a solution", when it comes to several people. Certainly Lumine has expressed such at various different points in history.

I'll preface this by saying I basically agree with everything Yankee said, so this is intended as an addendum, not a rebuttal.

I've been involved in this game, in one capacity or another, for almost four years. In that time, I don't think we have ever been in a place where the entire system has experienced sustained activity for more than a few weeks. Part of that is systemic, part of it is cultural, and sometimes simply dumb luck that grinds the gears to a halt. At this point, I frankly no longer trust the 'traditional' remedies for inactivity, because they simply have not produced sustained results. If your patient needs an emergency operation every month to keep him alive, it's time to ask what is wrong with the treatment plan, and maybe time as well to take a step back and assess whether your expectations for 'recovery' are reasonable.

I should point out today is my tenth anniversary in the game, ironically. I think a good part of it is cultural as well as a shift in interest by the target base that the game depends on as well.

From my time in the Mideast Assembly, to the Senate, to the ConCon, and most recently as prime minister in Fremont, we have always had legislators who inhabit a middle ground between the truly inactive (the Fairbols and Roy Barneses who just disappear and leave everyone in the lurch) and the super-human posters who hold down a cabinet position, a seat in the Senate, two or three regional offices, and manage to church out 40-some bills in an afternoon. They may not be prolific bill writers, and they may not have an expert's knowledge of the finer points of policy, but they consistently show up for votes, contribute feedback, and are at least a regular presence in debates. I don't think RFayette authored a bill the entire time he was in the Fremont legislature —but he rarely missed a vote, he ran in the elections, and he did his job. Shaming these legislators as inactive is not helpful, and does nothing to encourage sustainable activity. If someone is actually neglecting their duties, that's one thing —but if they just don't have a lot to say, we need to understand that not everyone is a policy wonk, but may still have something to offer.

There is nothing wrong with having a few Rfayettes, the problem comes when everyone in the chamber or the vast majority of members in a chamber are operating on such a level. I certainly understand the point about intellectual elitism, I am certainly not calling for dissertations but when it comes to gradients I think it is reasonable to at least encourage people to post thouhts and questions, otherwise you have little basis for a debate to occur. 

We need to understand that the majority of those who play this game are not here to write a doctoral thesis on the finer points of the U.S. tax code. Wonkishness in this game often functions as a kind of elitism, with a small circle of posters who care very deeply about policy insisting that everyone share their pet obsession and denigrating the hoi poloi as ignorant and their contributions not worth entertaining. This attitude drives people away, and is frankly unrealistic in its conception of activity. That's not to say we shouldn't strive to be thorough or more nuanced in our approach to policy questions; but we do need to be reasonably accommodating of those whose knowledge of a particular area is more basic.

You need a certain number of policy wonks though to make things happen, but yes not everyone is a policy wonk. But there is a big gap between policy wonk and non-contributing. If you don't say or ask anything at all, that is the opposite extreme and it is reasonable to be concerned about that. But certainly in between if you are offering your points and contributing to the discussion, I am perfectly fine with that

The Lechausseur recall affair actually concerns me quite a bit, because it seems to represent an uncompromising definition of activity that turns on anyone who falters even for a moment. I don't know what discussions may have taken place behinds the scenes before the recall petition was introduced, but frankly, nine days seems a very short time to be calling for someone's dismissal from office. I'm not saying we should give someone the benefit of the doubt indefinitely—eventually, if someone is not able to be present, something needs to be done—but I do think we need to retool our expectations, understand that sometimes outside circumstances prevent a player from being present, and assess whether action is really necessary before plunging ahead with something as serious as a recall.

I think there became a level of anxiousness from the Haslam situation that spilled over to Lechasseur's case. This is not the first time we have seen populist rage foment over inactivity, the court in early 2013 comes to mind.
 

To change tack somewhat abruptly, I don't think you can talk about inactivity without also taking into consideration the tone of the game. Yankee made the point in his first presidential campaign almost two years ago now, and it bears repeating: this game is fueled by voluntary participation, and if people are made to feel unwelcome, they are not going to stick around. I don't know what people who throw around phrases like "human scum" and others I can't repeat without violating the TOS think they are achieving, but if the goal is to drive people away from the game, it's working.

This has to be made vitally important, it is one thing to have passionate energy but whenever you direct towards any one individual, you are harming both the game and yourself.

These are more musings than anything—I've no idea what they imply as far as a course of action, and anyways somebody else is going to have to do it, because I've no more energy to keep throwing myself at the same problems over and over as I would have a couple of years ago. That won't stop people from reading a nefarious partisan agenda into it, but so it goes.

So yeah, in addition to Yankee's list (which is spot-on), I'd include

     • don't be an *ssh*le
     • learn to work with and combine the strengths of different kinds of active players
     • don't be an *ssh*le

No-one will listen, of course, and in fairness my thoughts are disorganized and probably unintelligible at this hour; but that's my two cents. Those who disagree violently, as they inevitably will, can take comfort in the knowledge that I have every intention to never run for office again, at least not before the very distant future, and so these ramblings of a weary citizen can be safely ignored.

I have seen and composed for more disorganized posts.

[YE]

As the longest tenured elected office holder, I’ll add my 2 cents. Let me start off by saying that prior to my entrance in Fremont politics, there had yet to be a single session with more than I think 12 bills and ever since that time, evey session since has gotten to at least 16 bills through. Don’t get me wrong, I had a very talented legislature but I’ve also done my part to maintain activity, and basically ousted the inactive FM last April and my loyalty as a whole provided some stability to the region.

Activity is hard to define but it’s best defined as there’s a sense of energy that sustains itself and doesn’t seem like people are only voting aye or abstain every time on bills and then go back to doing nothing. But there are certain things I’ve noticed that leads to more activity. I don’t even think a competent federal government is nesecary for the regions to at least be productive.

1.A good speaker. We’re seeing an example of the importance of this in Nyman atm where stuff is getting thrown to the wayside and then bumped a light year or two later. A good speaker basically keeps the chains running. That’s it. It’s not a partisan job because the skills needed to be speaker aren’t inherently partisan. The speaker doesn’t have to be a policy wonk though. ON Progressive is a solid speaker because he’s always on Atlas and keeps the day to day operations up to par, even if he’s not very outgoing or involved in anything outside region politics.

2.You need a few people who write bills. They don’t have to be super long or super complex but at the same time, having one person write the bills is very risky since one it could lead to yes manning and that person writing everything is likely to get burnt out and opens the door for collapse.

3.The first few days or weeks are the most critical because one already has everyone’s attention by virtue of it being so close to the election. Now is the time to build some relationships and energy. The longer you wait the worse it is.

Having an innovative executive is a plus but not always vital. I’m more of a manager type than a policy wonk and generally save most of my initiatives from when Parliament is on a dry spell and needs a re-boost.

Activity, because there is no theoretical maximum level of activity, is something that can always be improved though. To be honest, I want to do more in terms of player and candidate recruitment for my region and party. I will have the time after I fly home for the winter hopefully.
 

[Pericles]

I guess the moral of the story is be the change you wish to see in the world.

[Pericles]

The negativity thing is an important point, and I think it is a real shame when things get unnecessarily personal and toxic in the game. This is probably a turnoff to people, I'll be quite frank and say sometimes I have considered deregistering myself. My first real experience of this was in the February 2018 presidential campaign, perhaps I should have been more active previously and gotten myself into national politics at a slower pace(then again, it was a good opportunity to make a positive difference that nearly turned out very well and could have if I had been smarter and better in my campaign, but that's a side point anyway). Now, I don't want to overstate this, it's certainly important to contrast policies and visions with other candidates, and you shouldn't expect politics to be an easy ride. And it is sometimes appropriate and necessary to call out other candidates on their personal issues(though can go too far if you hold stuff against them that they have already apologized for and addressed, it's really a fine line), like with 1184AZ I personally was concerned by issues he had as a candidate that I thought needed to be addressed publicly. However politics has gotten too heated and at times toxic. At times I have been provoked by this negativity and insults from others and have reacted and made comments that were inappropriate and perhaps caused offense, which I apologize for. This is also an example of how when we allow negativity and toxicity to exist, it feeds on itself and proliferates, and I think most, if not all, people playing the game are good people at heart who want to be kind to others, and unfortunately this can't always be the case. People want the best for each other and the game, I believe. So hopefully we can together be more mindful of this. Now hopefully people can refrain from launching personal attacks against me based on this. Perhaps having a flawed and somewhat toxic culture in the game is inevitable, but if people are at least aware of this being an issue and try to refrain from adding fuel to the fire(as I want to do, but haven't always managed to, and will try more now upon further reflection with this issue), then maybe the game can be better and more active and attractive for all players, especially newcomers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As the longest tenured elected office holder, I’ll add my 2 cents. Let me start off by saying that prior to my entrance in Fremont politics, there had yet to be a single session with more than I think 12 bills and ever since that time, evey session since has gotten to at least 16 bills through. Don’t get me wrong, I had a very talented legislature but I’ve also done my part to maintain activity, and basically ousted the inactive FM last April and my loyalty as a whole provided some stability to the region.

I think Fremont is certainly in much better shape than in previous situations and that is not always easy to maintain long term in this region.

Activity is hard to define but it’s best defined as there’s a sense of energy that sustains itself and doesn’t seem like people are only voting aye or abstain every time on bills and then go back to doing nothing. But there are certain things I’ve noticed that leads to more activity. I don’t even think a competent federal government is nesecary for the regions to at least be productive.

Indeed, and this happened with the exception of Fremont when I was President the first time. It is the ultimate irony but during a pro-region President, we had the most serious calls for secession post reset (including both Labor and Feds) who were fed up at the Federal Government because Congress was so broken at the time. Which merely doubled my interest after it became clear I didn't have a shut at reelection that February to run for House and start lighting crap on fire if necessary.

The regions can be productive yes, but the Federal government can also feed the regions as well, which helps, especially via the SoIA and it is a dynamic that has not really been exhausted in terms of its potential.

1.A good speaker. We’re seeing an example of the importance of this in Nyman atm where stuff is getting thrown to the wayside and then bumped a light year or two later. A good speaker basically keeps the chains running. That’s it. It’s not a partisan job because the skills needed to be speaker aren’t inherently partisan. The speaker doesn’t have to be a policy wonk though. ON Progressive is a solid speaker because he’s always on Atlas and keeps the day to day operations up to par, even if he’s not very outgoing or involved in anything outside region politics.

Most definitely but there are two components that make it simultaneously more tedious but also structurally more sustainable long term.

         1. Public Accomodation - Regularly Updated noticeboard helps members and non members follow what is going on and gives a sense of a public display of what the speaker has to do on a regular basis.
         2. Just as important and especially important now with bicameralism, is chains of communications. When bills pass each chamber, the Speaker/PPT should PM that to the VP. When they pass both, the VP Should send it to the President. The President should then split up and send it to the responsible departments. The Secretaries should implement those bills evem if just with simple Executive orders and forward their actions to the GM, who then generates effects, which can then be legislated on, repeating the cycle.   

2.You need a few people who write bills. They don’t have to be super long or super complex but at the same time, having one person write the bills is very risky since one it could lead to yes manning and that person writing everything is likely to get burnt out and opens the door for collapse.

You need a diverse set of skills and bill writers are among them. It helps to have someone like TNF or Mr R who is a legendary bill write in terms of volume, but at the various least a number of passive bill writers (one or two per session) and yes they don't have to be complex.  In the early 2014 sessions I frequently refer to, TNF, shua and myself wrote most of the legislation. But everyone else typically engaged in debates. And nearly everyone offered amendments: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=185055.msg4040747#msg4040747

This session was the record holder until the 13th Congress this summer in terms of bills past at 30, even with 103 amendments. And at that time we had longer minimum vote times, which were usual respected. Both the main noticeboard and the amendment tracker had overflow posts, because of the size of the queue, number of past bills and number of amendments offered.

Also as a hilarious note, people complained about the size of the queue, and even tried to topple me for not moving fast enough. Imagine that, complaining about us having TOO MANY bills pending!
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=185055.msg4040747#msg4040747

3.The first few days or weeks are the most critical because one already has everyone’s attention by virtue of it being so close to the election. Now is the time to build some relationships and energy. The longer you wait the worse it is.

The one caveat to this is the holiday season, which is why attempts to change the length of the lame duck period have failed. This one is typically the longest, but trying to start a Congress just before or between Christmas and New Years, is a recipe for disaster. I would also point out that the 59th Congress linked above ran from January 2014 until March 2014, so while this lame duck period is the longest, it can be the most active period in Congress. Though post-reset that has not been the case. The worse post resent Congress was the 4th (Jan 2017 - Mar 2017) and the 10th (Jan 2018 - Mar 2018) was not much better (didnt' help that it was a downright horrible time for me IRL).

Having an innovative executive is a plus but not always vital. I’m more of a manager type than a policy wonk and generally save most of my initiatives from when Parliament is on a dry spell and needs a re-boost.

Certainly, though one should note that the above point you made about initial energy being important and some proposals you need to take advantage of that and push hard from the beginning.

Activity, because there is no theoretical maximum level of activity, is something that can always be improved though. To be honest, I want to do more in terms of player and candidate recruitment for my region and party. I will have the time after I fly home for the winter hopefully.
 

Much like new business creates the most new jobs, new people are the only long term path to sustainable activity. Older people have a valuable contribution, but there are diminishing returns over times, shorter periods of return or worse you have cases like Haslam and Barnes where sputter out and disappear rather quickly.