ATLAS: Atlasians Thinking, Leading, Acting, Solving

[Vepres]

Sounds good. I'm in.

[Vepres]

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.

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?

I have a few ideas:

1. Have better organized parties, whether this structure is in the new constitution or not is for others to decide. The parties should all have conventions in the midterm elections as well as the presidential.

2. I don't know how this would be done, but it would be really cool if somebody could poll the public from time to time before elections. They could purposely only take a fraction of the population (though adjust for party identification) so there would be a margin of error and thus a surprise on election day.

3. I was debating whether this would be a good idea or not, I'll let you guys decide. What if we had senators elected every three months, thus creating eight senatorial elections a year. Just as one election ended, another would start to ramp up.

4. We need an active GM. This could engage the non-office holders in the governmental actions more, thus issues would be more important in campaigns.

What do you all think?

[Vepres]

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.

Well, the seat will immediately be filled by a willing citizen at the discretion of the governor. Of course, it is important to get the people involved, but there needs to be some incentive to hold a position. If someone can just waltz in and get a position, it defeats the purpose of an election sim. It makes it a gov't sim.

This.

By the way, I absolutely disagree with reducing the regions to three.

Why? Most of the regions aren't even active, so what is the point of having five? Why not try having three and see if that can get the regions active again. Also, if we had all Senate races by region it wouldn't be very fun at all.

Well, the Midwest has been unusually active this past week, but yes, there usually isn't much activity. Perhaps if we combined the Pacific and Midwestern Regions, Left the Mideast its own region, then made the South, Northeast, Maryland, DC, and Virginia one region, I could see there being far more activity.

Also, why is the Mideast so much more active?

[Vepres]

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.

[Vepres]

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.

[Vepres]

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.

[Vepres]

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.

Does every region have enough active people to hold down a legislative body?

Perhaps if they had an elected legislative body they would be more active. No? We should test this in one of the regions, and see if it increases activity.

[Vepres]

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.

Touche.

Still, it would be an interesting to experiment with an elected legislature in one of the regions and see the effects.

[Vepres]

People should by all means encourage anybody to sign up, but not necessarily telling them to join their party. If I ever get somebody to join, something I suck at doing, I'd direct them to the thread on parties for them to choose.

Yes, if you see a newbie in other parts of the Atlas forum, and they seem somewhat active, PM them about Atlasia, I bet we could add 20-30 members this way in just a few short months.

[Vepres]

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).

[Vepres]

Bump.

How about more discussion, these are very interesting ideas.

[Vepres]

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.

Bayh'10 and I have been attempting to recruit newbies, but so far, none have proved to be active or interested. I think we need every public office holder and every candidate for public office to attempt to recruit newbies.

On the subject of newbies, we need a more detailed Introduction to Atlasia thread which includes a basic explanation of government proceedings, elections, and voting.

[Vepres]

     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?

[Vepres]

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.

[Vepres]

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.

If only Bacon King weren't already in the senate, there would have been at least a chance an non-RPPer would win.

[Vepres]

     Back in October, the RPP tried to knock off a few super-safe incumbents. The result was that we were ridiculed for wasting our time. If the three major parties were to make a gentlemen's agreement to try to draft candidates for as many races as possible (other than ones that are the subject of certain other gentlemen's agreements ), that could go a long way towards boosting electoral interest as well as giving newbies something to get engrossed in.

Well, as one of the "faces" of the RPP, you should engage in these gentlemen's agreements. I hope you can get somewhere with that.

[Vepres]

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.

The voting system prevents splitting I believe.

[Vepres]

Have certain things a GM must do in order to remain GM. A minimum activity level, biannual economic and budget reports (nothing fancy, but enough to make fiscal and economic issues matter), info on the relations between Atlasia and major countries around the world, and perhaps other things. I think that the position should be more structured so that we know we will get at least so much from every GM (hopefully they would do more, but at least the requirements are there).

[Vepres]

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?

[Vepres]

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.

[Vepres]

To prevent candidacies such as mine (absolutely a terrible idea on my part), what if we amended the constitution to prevent one from running for a national office (senator, president, VP) until they had voted in at least one regularly scheduled national election (special elections don't count). This gives them a familiarity of how national campaigns are run, and what it takes to win. It also ensures that, unless they join right before an election (not likely) they have some experience and familiarity with Atlasia.

[Vepres]

To prevent candidacies such as mine (absolutely a terrible idea on my part), what if we amended the constitution to prevent one from running for a national office (senator, president, VP) until they had voted in at least one regularly scheduled national election (special elections don't count). This gives them a familiarity of how national campaigns are run, and what it takes to win. It also ensures that, unless they join right before an election (not likely) they have some experience and familiarity with Atlasia.

     Let me ask you this, though: did you have fun campaigning for the Midwest Senate seat?

At first, until I realized that I had no shot, then I felt newbish and ignorant.

[Vepres]

To prevent candidacies such as mine (absolutely a terrible idea on my part), what if we amended the constitution to prevent one from running for a national office (senator, president, VP) until they had voted in at least one regularly scheduled national election (special elections don't count). This gives them a familiarity of how national campaigns are run, and what it takes to win. It also ensures that, unless they join right before an election (not likely) they have some experience and familiarity with Atlasia.

     Let me ask you this, though: did you have fun campaigning for the Midwest Senate seat?

At first, until I realized that I had no shot, then I felt newbish and ignorant.

     The point of running campaigns in Atlasia is to have fun. As long as they don't realize it, there's nothing wrong in newbies campaigning for offices that they cannot win.

However, they may get a bad reputation like GPORTER, and then they won't ever win an office. Reputations seem to stick here.

[Vepres]

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?

Let me get this straight. Lots of people, newbs or otherwise, and activity and campaigning vs. big names getting high enthusiasm from the old guard and getting high turnout on election. Please clarify if I'm wrong.

Well I prefer content and activity. I think a candidate should have many campaign stops. Not only do these encourage members to check in often, but it catalyzes activity that otherwise wouldn't happen. I don't think all campaigns should be like this, but most. After all, it is fun to get two well known players in an epic and competitive race, but these shouldn't dominate the game, because newbies may not care that these established names are running.

Again, please expand on the options, they were somewhat ambiguous.