ATLAS: Atlasians Thinking, Leading, Acting, Solving

[Purple State]

Welcome all to the ATLAS think tank,

In my work as Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, Senator, and former Speaker of the Mideast Assembly, I have seen the passion and ingenuity of the members of this nation. While we all approach the issues differently and oftentimes have our disagreements, it is undeniable that every active member brings a valid, powerful set of beliefs that have the potential to move the game forward in a meaningful way.

As such, I am hoping to start this thread as a consortium of ideas. There will be no membership, no ranks or titles, and (likely) no consensus. Instead, the purpose of this think tank is to provide a platform for friendly and productive discussion of the major issues. Rather than the partisan bickering usually attached to discussions in legislation or campaign threads, this place will serve as a neutral location where thoughts can be aired, disagreement can be voiced, and solutions can be found (albeit rarely).

For purposes of progress, I hope to serve as a moderator in this think tank, bringing up one or two relevant and current issues a week. The first subject will be posted later this week after I hear from you. Is this something people are interested in? Would anyone be willing to participate, if even occasionally?

[Purple State]

Alright, looks like a fair amount of support. I will be posting the first topic tomorrow morning.

[Purple State]

The first (and most timely) topic for discussion: Election and campaign reform

The topic breadth ranges from making elections more exciting to secret ballot to clean campaign rules. How do you think we could improve the election sim aspect of the game, add competition to races, reduce the messiness, etc?

[Purple State]

I don't like the way we currently elected people, it is a good way if we have more then one office to fill, but head to head matches it's kinda useless. Also, I believe making all senate races at-large will be better.

I disagree with making all the senate seats at-large. Regional politics are fun. Besides, it adds many election to follow instead of one big one.

A lot of the times you have only one person running for senate in a region, and sometimes you don't have anyone at all.

Perhaps reducing the regions to 3 would have the desired affect if we maintain one senator from each.

[Purple State]

I would love to reduce the Regions to three.

I would actually support expanding by a few. I also think there should be more assemblymen.

The problem is most Regions aren't active like the Mideast is. So you have pointless office olders that aren't really active and regions that are dead.

If we were to cut down, I feel that we need more members in the Assembly, so the people can be better represented.

Each Assembly is governed by their own regional constitution, including the number of members. Honestly, we don't have enough interested and motivated members in this game to make increasing the number of regions or an increased number of assembly members viable.

Perhaps we could allow for non-executive office holders to serve at both the federal and state levels.

[Purple State]

I would love to reduce the Regions to three.

I would actually support expanding by a few. I also think there should be more assemblymen.

The problem is most Regions aren't active like the Mideast is. So you have pointless office olders that aren't really active and regions that are dead.

If we were to cut down, I feel that we need more members in the Assembly, so the people can be better represented.

Perhaps you should enter your name into consideration for the Assembly once Dan or I gets elected to the Senate. I wouldn't mind making the regions smaller, but the region that will be first to the chopping block would be the Mideast, due to its geographic location.

I was planning on doing  that.
It should be more open for people who WANT to participate. I want to participate and get involved in this game. More seats would give some people a better chance. Raising the number of assembleymen= More votes

If you feel strongly about this, maybe you could write up an amendment to the constitution. I'd be happy to submit it for you.

Unfortunately, once Dan or you win the Senate seat, suddenly the extra seat is vacant.

Some regions have a universal system where all citizens vote. What I tried to do in the Mideast, first during the Constitutional Convention and recently through the referendum amendment, was allow an Assembly to represent the people on a day-to-day basis, while always leaving the option for a universal vote over controversial legislation.

[Purple State]

Because the people who live in the Mideast are more active on in Atlasia.

But I'm wondering if it's coincidence, or if there is an underlying reason for this.

It wasn't always so.

[Purple State]

Perhaps the issue of population could be addressed through a little advertising.  Really, a game of this scope and breadth that has lasted this long should have far greater than 100 or so participants.  I'm sure there are tons of people out there who would love to get involved, if they knew about it.  Facebook, MySpace, Twitter?  I'm not as internet-savvy as some of you younger guys.  But imagine what life would be like here if we had something like 300 or 400 registered voters.  This could be possible, if some really active measures were taken to get the word out.

Or even just make sure people on the site know what this is and want to get involved. I was a member on Atlas for a few months before I ventured forth into the mysterious Atlasia. I had no idea what it was when I joined.

[Purple State]

It could draw new members, as well as lead some older ones to return. I say it would be best done right after the Convention. Advertise a new Constitution, new game style, etc.

[Purple State]

I was just reading over the constitutions of the states and realized that none, save the Mideast's, had an elected legislative body (somebody else may have pointed this out earlier). If every region had an elected legislator, the elections would be far more meaningful, and there would be more activity in the regions.

Why aren't propositions enough?  If it weren't for propositions, you wouldn't've been able to jump right into Midwestern politics and introduce a bill.

I realize that. Here's my reasoning. The Mideast is currently the most active region, they have an elected legislature, therefore, an elected legislature increases activity.

School shootings decrease in the summer.  Ice cream sales increase in the summer.  Therefore school shootings decrease ice cream sales, or perhaps ice cream sales inhibit school shootings.

The thing is, elected positions make people (hopefully) try to act in ways that ensure reelection. Providing a measure of responsibility or ownership of the region gives people a reason to participate. That's what an elected legislature does.

[Purple State]

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

This is my thought as well. And those who are elected feel some responsibility to be active and pass legislation.

[Purple State]

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

This is my thought as well. And those who are elected feel some responsibility to be active and pass legislation.

Which is why I think the number of assemblymen should be increased. It stinks that some people who might want to get elected would lose an election, even though they really want it. I've gotten active, for example, because after the June elections, there will be an open seat in the Assembly, and I want it.

     While it is disappointing to be on the losing end of that, we need some losers if we're to have exciting elections. Considering the lack of competition that Assembly seats draw, increasing the number of seats would hardly help, especially given the lack of people to staff them all. The Mideast was originally going to have five assemblymen. One of the first, if not the first, amendments they passed was to reduce the number to three when they realized how unfeasible it is to find five citizens to hold Assembly seats.

Well, it would increase activity. I think this comes down to whether you want more activity or more exciting elections. I happen to want more activity in Atlasia, therefore, I support expanding the number of Assemblymen. If someone could find a way to do both, I would be happy with that as well.

I believe you extended my logic too far.

The reason legislatures increase activity is because it gives members of the Assembly the need to remain active in order to secure reelection. If the elections are wholly uncompetitive (as a larger Assembly would ensure), there would be no such incentive to do their job. There needs to be a proper balance of competitive, but not restrictive elections to ensure that there are losers, but enough winners to keep activity going.

[Purple State]

Seeing as discussion has slowed down I will roll out the next topic. Before each new topic, I will provide a recap of what was discussed on the previous issue.

Election and campaign reform
While we drifted pretty far off topic, we came up with a number of interesting discussions, as highlighted below:

• Regions = It was proposed that we change the number of regions. Consensus seemed to indicate we reduce or maintain the number of regions, but ensure that each region has a legislature to allow for members to further participate and be active.
• Activity = The main reason increasing the number of regions or seats in the legislatures was not supported was the lack of activity in Atlasia. To help with this, it was widely supported that we increase membership and activity by: maintaining an active GM; advertise, advertise, advertise; allow non-executive officeholders to hold dual offices; open more regional legislatures.

The next topic is Dual office holding and term limits.

This is a slightly more specific discussion than our last and so will probably be a shorter discussion. However, something that has not often been discussed, but is occasionally mentioned, is the removal of term limits or the allowance of dual office holding, each with or without caveats. What would be the best solution for each and why?

[Purple State]

I guess I will start.

Term limits: This is difficult. On one hand, eliminating the term limits might help retain more of the older more active members, as they would only lose office upon retirement of the loss of an election. On the other hand, what if an extremely popular, almost unbeatable person becomes president without term limits? This would essentially ruin the best part of the game. I'll let more experienced Atlasians expand on this topic.

Dual Office Holding: I don't think this is a good idea personally. We would end up with a handful of elites monopolizing all offices. Newbies like myself and Bayh'10 would have to challenge incumbents to gain office (though I am doing it anyway). While it is fun to be the underdog, it is good for newbies to feel like they have a shot at a office right away (whether real or perceived).

I agree that term limits is a tough one. While the limits do cycle out experienced members, they also allows for the occasional shake-up of a good chunk of the government, making for exciting elections and allowing up-and-comers to advance through the ranks. I agree we do need term limits, but only on certain positions (executive positions) and not too restrictive.

To a certain degree I agree with your dual office holding assessment and if we continue to gain new and excited members in the game it won't be necessary. My original proposal to allow this was rooted in a period a few months ago when it appeared incredibly difficult to replace retiring members with fresh faces. Assuming the recruitment initiatives continue to work, this won't be necessary. We just have to hope that the new users continue to participate and don't end up being flashes in the pan.

[Purple State]

     The problem with large drives to recruit newbies is that many of them either never get involved or fade away in a couple of months. When I've recruited people I have specifically asked them to drop by every couple days or so. It's been pretty successful in large part.

You seem to recruit many newbies, including me , so how many of these newbies become active and remain active?

It cannot be truly measured yet. A sudden influx can easily disappear when people become dissatisfied or bored. The goal is to find ways to keep new members engaged. To bring us back to the topic, how can we best do that with the matters of dual office holding and term limits.

[Purple State]

I have more thoughts on the term limits topic.

First, I think we need to have at least two people in every senate race, no matter how strong or weak one candidate is. It is ultimately up to the parties to encourage members to run for office. If they don't do this, we may have no choice but put legislative term limits in place to catalyze activity. I really don't want that to happen, but we have to do something to keep legislative races competitive without removing regional representation.

I agree I am practically to the point of begging PS to find someone to run against me. I realise its a tall order in the South, we have pretty well locked down the area so I encourage, and thank god DWTL isn't here to read this, the DA to launch a massive recruiting effort to make the South competative.

I would agree, in theory, but some races are not always viable. It is hard enough to maintain relatively safe seats, not to mention attempting to avoid appearing far too dominant. It is as futile to oppose the RPP in the SE as it is to challenge the JCP in the Pacific. You also have to consider the size of the DA.

My bigger surprise is that neither the JCP nor RPP have attempted to encroach on the territory of the other. Both parties have the membership resources to challenge the regional seats.

Perhaps setting term limits for executive positions, such as Governors, would be smarter. Oftentimes senior members relegate themselves to a cushy governorship position that they maintain for as long as they continue to run. These members tend to be very popular, but lack the motivation to run for a higher office. Perhaps forcing governors to run for legislative offices, like the Senate, would allow regional governments to switch up more often, allowing assembly members to move up, new recruits to run for assembly, etc.

[Purple State]

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I believe if the major parties would have primaries to elected their President/VP candidate it would make the parties stronger.

Possibly. But it could also divide the party. If it is extremely close, the losing candidate could decide to run in the general, splitting the party.

It would also just take more effort than many parties are willing to expend, not to mention smaller parties would have a harder time.

[Purple State]

As this was a shorter topic, I will end it with the following summary:

Term limits and Dual office holding

• Term Limits = Possibly good for executive positions to shake up the regions and allow for advancement at all levels. Lack of term limits allows older members to stay put in comfortable positions, maintaining popularity but holding positions from newer members.
• Dual Office Holding = General consensus opposed this option as an obstacle to competition and open races.

The next topic is GM reform.

This is to say, what modifications would you like to see to the GM position? How can we ensure an active GM? What should the major responsibilities of the GM be and how can those be achieved on a regular basis?

[Purple State]

I think we should have some sort of artificial GM-determined markets that change daily. An Atlasian Stock Exchange, Oil, Gold and the Atlasian Dollar value change. A daily report, just a few lines, could really make for interesting economic action in the Senate.

[Purple State]

I think we should have some sort of artificial GM-determined markets that change daily. An Atlasian Stock Exchange, Oil, Gold and the Atlasian Dollar value change. A daily report, just a few lines, could really make for interesting economic action in the Senate.

That's not a bad idea. Considering all the economic issues in real life, I'm sure the senators are eager to know the situation in Atlasia.

By the way, could GM activity requirements be legislated, or do they have to be constitutional?

Depends on the result of the current court case. I would argue it can be legislated (as I did before the Supreme Court) and plan to introduce legislation if the ruling is in my favor.

[Purple State]

I think we should have some sort of artificial GM-determined markets that change daily. An Atlasian Stock Exchange, Oil, Gold and the Atlasian Dollar value change. A daily report, just a few lines, could really make for interesting economic action in the Senate.

I suggested the same thing. You would also need to know Unemployment, and Inflation at the very least. I would also include the Trade Balance and finally the GM could report the decisions of the Federal Reserve(Does Atlasia have one?). If not we could create it and then just have the GM fabricate its actions and decisions.

In addition, and I know this may be difficult, shouldn't the GM report on the budget situation within the government so senators have to find money to pay for their programs.

What about taxes? The GM could report on tax revenue, say, biannually, where every citizen represents x amount of people. The GM would decide the average income for that half year as well, so the senate can act on declining or rising income.

He could calculate government expenditures and revenue, but estimating revenue is a bit difficult. We could start by saying the budget is balanced and go from there...

[Purple State]

I still think we should elect the position of GM, honestly.

I actually like it as something Atlasians should consider when they elect their other officials: will this person not only be active, but also fight for activity in other positions.

[Purple State]

The next topic, and a timely one, is Rules for new members.

With the influx of new members into Atlasia and the surge of "flash in the pan" campaigns, do we need new rules for new members? Should we raise the restrictions on office holding? Do new members have ideas to better orient them to the game?

[Purple State]

     An idea I've had was to have a noticeboard of upcoming elections. That way when a new member joins they can see what offices there are to run for. If they run a campaign for some office, then they help contribute to a more active Atlasia & hopefully will get to see the fun that can be had in being an active participant.

That is a fabulous idea and perhaps a great responsibility to give to the SoFA. That would keep everyone more organized, allow the SoFA to keep track of his own work, etc.

[Purple State]

A debate I have heard thrown around in more subtle ways...

The next topic is Campaigning: Content/Activity vs. Seniority/Mobilization.

Essentially, some people prefer campaigns full of content, while others tout a big name and the ability to bring in a lot of old-time voters. So what do you prefer and why?