Ramblings on the House

[Sestak]

Yesterday, I made a post regarding the relationship between the House and regional legislatures. The premise, essentially, was simple: Lincoln is supposedly successfully able to carry a 9 member regional legislature, but in turn only has one member of the House. By contrast, Fremont, despite being the smallest region, is the home region of an absolute majority of Representatives (Koopa, TPH, fhtagn, Jimmy, DFW) - and Fremont, as a result, is in a complete candidate shortage for its extremely large assembly.

But this also gets to a larger point: During the debate on that Lincoln amendment, Ninja made a comment that reducing regional legislatures would reduce opportunity for newer players, as regional legislatures serve as the primary entrance point for new players. But of course, there is another institution of government that's also supposed to serve as such an entrance point: the House. The House - as a combination of old and new blood - was intended to be a training ground for newer players on par with the regions. But this has quite clearly not been the case. Since the start of 2018 (that's eight elections), the number of truly "new blood" players elected to the House can be counted on one hand: weatherboy, me, OSR, Maineiac, Alancia. And in the cases of weatherboy and Alancia, both had actually been in the CoD for around a month before joining the House.

The balance of old and new blood in the House has very clearly been tilted towards "new blood". And as a result, we've returned to the pre-reset mentality that regional legislatures are the only training ground, from which one then advances to either an executive position or Congress. The causes for this change are actually quite apparent when you look at it: experienced players being regionally locked from the Senate. Of the five representatives from Fremont, three are right-wingers - two of whom have made numerous unsuccessful runs at region-wide office in the past. In the South - otherwise a right wing vote sink - two of its three representatives are established left-wingers. For players who are in this situation regarding their region, the House suddenly becomes the highest aspiration possible short of the Presidency or VP. And these players start to dominate the chamber's composition - something that's more true now than it ever has been in the past.

The most often suggested courses regarding legislative size have been reducing the size of the House while continuing with or even expanding the sizes of the large regional legislatures. I posit that the better course of action would actually be precisely the opposite - we should be looking at increasing the size of the House while reigning back in the 9- and 8-member regional legislative behemoths. This way, the House can accommodate some of these older players regionally locked out of the Senate while still leaving enough room for newer players to blossom.

Of course, if we actually wish to change the fact that the House is now a final aspiration for many players, then more dramatic changes are probably needed. One particularly radical idea would be something along the lines of the following: In addition to the six regional seats in the Senate, add two at-large seats to the chamber; in order to balance the regional/at-large disparity, convert three of the House seats to regional ones. This way, the Senate can act as the final legislative aspiration of pretty much any player. Instead of many players just being stuck in the House, they can make Senate runs that actually have a chance at winning instead of just being sacrificial lambs for the position. In addition, having more "venues" for elections (regional House, at-large House, regional Senate, at-large Senate) means that there will have to be more serious campaigns that actually fall short - in other words, more competitiveness, thus actually increasing the value of an office by making one have to compete for them.

I'm not necessarily saying something such as the above is the ideal solution, merely something to put out there. But if we don't change things, and we continue with what was essentially the pre-reset status quo with the federal legislature as the final (non-presidential) aspiration for players while the regional governments act as feeders, then I don't really see a point in retaining bicameralism - the House's value as an incubative chamber has been completely lost.

[Sestak]

Two at large Senate seats would end up as 1 Labor 1 Fed all the time. Six House seats at large would present a similar problem. Not to mention it would screw the balance of bicameralism.

Also some of your history seems incorrect. Razze and Devout Centrist went from regional legislature to House. So did Ninja. Not any different than WB and Alancia.

The difference is time. Razze and DC both spent a substantial amount of time in their regional legislatures before moving to House, they really couldn't be considered inexperienced players.

Same with Ninja - he was even speaker of the legislature before becoming a Representative.

Also in the hypothetical proposal above the at large seats would be split one per class.

[Sestak]

Also while I can see why the House is considered a lower post to some, it is suppose to be an equal branch to the Senate, not beneath it.

Lower in terms of importance, no.

Lower in terms of average seniority, yes.

[Sestak]

I will say privately I had been looking into a cap for the Southern Chamber. Now as for if bicameralism works and should we keep it, I wholeheartedly believe we ought to keep the system we have. Now as for people running for office, I’m of the opinion anyone should be able to run for anything. New players have every right to jump into whatever office or race they’d like just as an old player does.

But, this creates electability issues, for example I can’t just run for the federal government right off the bat, and expect to win, the electorate would vote for a more tenured politician

This is why I’ve floated House expansion in there - this way new players can actually compete with older ones on a more even footing.

Here’s how I view political mobility


New User——>State Legislature

State Legislature——>House of Representatives

State Legislature——->Governorship

House of Reps——> Governorship
House of Reps——>Senate

Governorship——>House of Reps
Governorship——->Senate

Senate——->Position in Executive or Judicial Branch

Reducing state legislatures eliminates new politicians, also new users need practice rather than being forced to run for federal government, with no experience

This is a mostly accurate mobility map right now, but the main point of my argument is that it should not be - new players should be able to run for at least the House much more often than they do.

Also you don’t need “practice” in a regional legislature before you can go to the House. I can attest to this myself.

[Sestak]

While there are a lot of fun topics that can only be addressed federally, I found being a Regional legislator much more enjoyable and every bit as impactful as being in Congress. No one should think of Regional legislature as any less prestigious than Congress.

Yes, and a key portion of this is to stop thinking of regional legislature as the "only place where you can start before going to the federal government". It should be just as possible and acceptable to start in the House and then go to regional government.