Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 10, 2019, 07:09:38 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Print
Author Topic: A few thoughts from your PO; AMENDMENTS AT VOTE  (Read 40453 times)
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,116
Bangladesh


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2009, 01:04:22 am »

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=92890.0

lol
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,276
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2009, 10:18:33 am »

I certainly support the regions' right to exist and govern themselves to an extent...but I also think that eliminating regional Senate seats might be worth considering.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2009, 11:56:56 am »

Obviously we can't keep the current system of regional governors. However, I would still like the regions to be represented in some way on the national level.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,886
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2009, 02:54:00 pm »

Absolutely no stupid districts, and optimally no uncompetitive dead regions.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,559
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2009, 08:21:07 pm »

What about a 10-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member Council of Governors?
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2009, 08:50:07 pm »

What about a 10-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member Council of Governors?

Or possibly a 5-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member CoG. That way we maintain the same balance, but reduce the total number of seats in total. Governors do seem as redundant, less powerful/significant regional Senators.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,125
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2009, 08:51:33 pm »
« Edited: June 29, 2009, 09:13:14 pm by North Carolina Yankee(RPP-NC) »

What about a 10-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member Council of Governors?

This I could support. Provided its 10 Regionally elected Senate seats, and 5 member Council of Governors. Grin
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2009, 08:53:24 pm »

What about a 10-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member Council of Governors?

That would be a good idea actually.

However, the CoG couldn't propose legislation, only approve of legislation that passes in the senate. This way they have more time to focus on being governors (not that they do much).

What about requiring regions to have legislatures? An active region makes the governorship much more significant.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,125
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2009, 09:11:25 pm »
« Edited: June 29, 2009, 09:14:20 pm by North Carolina Yankee(RPP-NC) »

What about a 10-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member Council of Governors?

Or possibly a 5-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member CoG. That way we maintain the same balance, but reduce the total number of seats in total. Governors do seem as redundant, less powerful/significant regional Senators.

We will see. The CoG keeps the Governors busy when the Legislatures aren't very active. I would prefer a 10 member all regional senate. A Governor, Lt Governor, 3 person legislature and 2 Senators equal 7 plus Judical officers. Thats 8 positions. Times by 5 is 40 regional officials. You add the Federal officials you are looking at 5 to 8 more. At most 48 elected officials. With 120 registered voters and almost 85 voted or would have voted(Sam Spade, ILV etc) I don't see how that isn't doable. Lets not forget people can move to other regions. It does cause a problem for my friends in the DA as 4 of there Senators(the next Senate) are in one region, but by the time this is innacted that could of course change. Every Region can support that as long as they have at least 12 to 15 members. This would also make Governors races very competative. This proposal really doesn't add any new positions except the legislature since each region has a Governor and there are now ten Senators anyway.

It also shuffles up populations without changing Regional boundaries. Don't know about the rest of you but I think I have found a plan I can finally endorse.

However I would prefer to limit the holding of multiple offices to Governors and since the CoG would be extention of that office its not really dual office holding.

Yes I know its slighly different from what Lief proposed and eliminates the National elected Senators in favor of 15 Regionally election officials, but we need to get the regions active as well, to ignore that half of the problem would not fix anything.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2009, 09:25:05 pm »

What about a 10-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member Council of Governors?

Or possibly a 5-member nationally elected Senate and a 5-member CoG. That way we maintain the same balance, but reduce the total number of seats in total. Governors do seem as redundant, less powerful/significant regional Senators.

We will see. The CoG keeps the Governors busy when the Legislatures aren't very active. I would prefer a 10 member all regional senate. A Governor, Lt Governor, 3 person legislature and 2 Senators equal 7 plus Judical officers. Thats 8 positions. Times by 5 is 40 regional officials. You add the Federal officials you are looking at 5 to 8 more. At most 48 elected officials. With 120 registered voters and almost 85 voted or would have voted(Sam Spade, ILV etc) I don't see how that isn't doable. Lets not forget people can move to other regions. It does cause a problem for my friends in the DA as 4 of there Senators(the next Senate) are in one region, but by the time this is innacted that could of course change. Every Region can support that as long as they have at least 12 to 15 members. This would also make Governors races very competative. This proposal really doesn't add any new positions except the legislature since each region has a Governor and there are now ten Senators anyway.

It also shuffles up populations without changing Regional boundaries. Don't know about the rest of you but I think I have found a plan I can finally endorse.

However I would prefer to limit the holding of multiple offices to Governors and since the CoG would be extention of that office its not really dual office holding.

Yes I know its slighly different from what Lief proposed and eliminates the National elected Senators in favor of 15 Regionally election officials, but we need to get the regions active as well, to ignore that half of the problem would not fix anything.

I will just say this. I'm interviewing Hashemite at the moment, and he has some pretty good ideas. Check the sentinel thread in 15-20 min.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2009, 09:31:10 pm »

That is way too many positions and you underestimated the number of federal officials (Cabinet, SC). I would prefer the following layout:

Governor, three legislators and, perhaps, a sitting JO. That is 5 positions, times 5 is 25 regional positions, with about 15 federal officials (including Cabinet, SC, etc.) is 40 total positions to fill.

Basically, by removing regional Senators and raising Governors to a higher standing, it makes the seats more competitive. This would likely result in more active and caring Governors, which could result in regional reform. This would include some sort of legislature perhaps, and hopefully the removal of such unnecessary positions as Lt. Gov. and a standing regional judiciary. I would actually propose placing all regional cases under the federal court, but regional cases would be adjudicated according to regional law and federal cases according to federal law. The fewer seats available the better the elections will be.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2009, 09:46:12 pm »

That is way too many positions and you underestimated the number of federal officials (Cabinet, SC). I would prefer the following layout:

Governor, three legislators and, perhaps, a sitting JO. That is 5 positions, times 5 is 25 regional positions, with about 15 federal officials (including Cabinet, SC, etc.) is 40 total positions to fill.

Basically, by removing regional Senators and raising Governors to a higher standing, it makes the seats more competitive. This would likely result in more active and caring Governors, which could result in regional reform. This would include some sort of legislature perhaps, and hopefully the removal of such unnecessary positions as Lt. Gov. and a standing regional judiciary. I would actually propose placing all regional cases under the federal court, but regional cases would be adjudicated according to regional law and federal cases according to federal law. The fewer seats available the better the elections will be.

As I said above, the Governors shouldn't be able to propose legislation, just vote on stuff that passed the senate. This way, they have time to focus on their regions, and they still maintain their identity as more of executives instead of glorified legislators.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,125
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2009, 10:02:14 pm »

That is way too many positions and you underestimated the number of federal officials (Cabinet, SC). I would prefer the following layout:

Governor, three legislators and, perhaps, a sitting JO. That is 5 positions, times 5 is 25 regional positions, with about 15 federal officials (including Cabinet, SC, etc.) is 40 total positions to fill.

Basically, by removing regional Senators and raising Governors to a higher standing, it makes the seats more competitive. This would likely result in more active and caring Governors, which could result in regional reform. This would include some sort of legislature perhaps, and hopefully the removal of such unnecessary positions as Lt. Gov. and a standing regional judiciary. I would actually propose placing all regional cases under the federal court, but regional cases would be adjudicated according to regional law and federal cases according to federal law. The fewer seats available the better the elections will be.

Yes you are right on the number of Federal officials. But as I said the only added offices are the Legislatures. Lt. Govs can be elimanted if absolutely necessary but I find them to be quite useful in some circumstances. As for the Senate I am also open to maintaining the Senate as is and creating a Council of Governors. I see how making the Governorship more competative might work by elimanating the regional senate seats. The big problem I am running into is that I am opposed to any changes in the Structure and size of the Regions. So the only way to get competative elections would be through a shuffling of the population by getting people to move around and while your plan could also lead to that I still would prefer to keep a minimum number of offices as well as having too few could result in a shutting out of newer fresher people should to many be dominated by game veterans. 

That is way too many positions and you underestimated the number of federal officials (Cabinet, SC). I would prefer the following layout:

Governor, three legislators and, perhaps, a sitting JO. That is 5 positions, times 5 is 25 regional positions, with about 15 federal officials (including Cabinet, SC, etc.) is 40 total positions to fill.

Basically, by removing regional Senators and raising Governors to a higher standing, it makes the seats more competitive. This would likely result in more active and caring Governors, which could result in regional reform. This would include some sort of legislature perhaps, and hopefully the removal of such unnecessary positions as Lt. Gov. and a standing regional judiciary. I would actually propose placing all regional cases under the federal court, but regional cases would be adjudicated according to regional law and federal cases according to federal law. The fewer seats available the better the elections will be.

As I said above, the Governors shouldn't be able to propose legislation, just vote on stuff that passed the senate. This way, they have time to focus on their regions, and they still maintain their identity as more of executives instead of glorified legislators.

Well if you eliminate the REgional seats and then create CoG w/o the abililty to introduce legislation, I would have to oppose that on the grounds that it reduces the influence of the Regions in Gov't and I don't want to see that happen. If you keep the 10 Senator half regional/half national like now  I would support a Limited CoG(w/o the abililty to write and introduce legislation) but only in those cirmcumstances or in a the presence of a completely regional senate.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 29, 2009, 10:11:31 pm »

We don't need to get too complicated or harm ourselves more through reform than we help. We need to inspect the goals we want to achieve and find the right chords to strike that will reverberate through the game exactly as we want. Keep it simple. Expanding the number of offices would be harmful, as elections aren't competitive enough as it is. We need to make them more, not less.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 29, 2009, 10:29:19 pm »

We don't need to get too complicated or harm ourselves more through reform than we help. We need to inspect the goals we want to achieve and find the right chords to strike that will reverberate through the game exactly as we want. Keep it simple. Expanding the number of offices would be harmful, as elections aren't competitive enough as it is. We need to make them more, not less.

A simple list of ideas that I support that have come up here as well as a few of my own:

1. Create a Council of Governors. It would function similarly to the Senate (details will be worked out later).

2. Eliminate Lt. Gov. and other relatively powerless offices. The speaker (or whatever you call him) of the regional assembly will function like a Lt. Gov. if the Governor is temporarily unable to hold office. Which leads me to...

3. Require a regional legislature to stimulate activity and to give newbies the ability to be involved.

4. For worst case scenarios, eg the Pacific region, have the ability to slightly change the regions. Requirements to do this will be worked out later.

5. Hold elections more regularly.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,886
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 29, 2009, 10:32:31 pm »

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 29, 2009, 10:34:40 pm »

We don't need to get too complicated or harm ourselves more through reform than we help. We need to inspect the goals we want to achieve and find the right chords to strike that will reverberate through the game exactly as we want. Keep it simple. Expanding the number of offices would be harmful, as elections aren't competitive enough as it is. We need to make them more, not less.

A simple list of ideas that I support that have come up here as well as a few of my own:

1. Create a Council of Governors. It would function similarly to the Senate (details will be worked out later).

2. Eliminate Lt. Gov. and other relatively powerless offices. The speaker (or whatever you call him) of the regional assembly will function like a Lt. Gov. if the Governor is temporarily unable to hold office. Which leads me to...

3. Require a regional legislature to stimulate activity and to give newbies the ability to be involved.

4. For worst case scenarios, eg the Pacific region, have the ability to slightly change the regions. Requirements to do this will be worked out later.

5. Hold elections more regularly.

2 and 3 are both up to the regions to restructure themselves, but more active governors would help lead to those.

4 is less meant to break up single-party regions and more to equalize the number of citizens within each region, regardless of party, etc.

1 and 5 I fully support. Elections for the CoG can be decided by the regions (with a federal requirement that they happen at least every so often), but national Senate seats can be elected every 2 months.

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,559
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2009, 10:36:35 pm »

It's kind of odd that members of the RPP want to force rather strict government setups on the regions. I'd oppose this, as I believe that (if we need to keep regions) they should be able to decide how they run themselves.

At the same time, I would oppose any reform that retains regional senate seats. They are abysmal failures and even in "active" regions aren't particularly fun or interesting or competitive.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2009, 10:42:03 pm »

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Unfortunately we're the only region I can foresee a legislature failing in. Sad

However, slight changes to the regions could fix this problem.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2009, 10:42:41 pm »

It's kind of odd that members of the RPP want to force rather strict government setups on the regions. I'd oppose this, as I believe that (if we need to keep regions) they should be able to decide how they run themselves.

At the same time, I would oppose any reform that retains regional senate seats. They are abysmal failures and even in "active" regions aren't particularly fun or interesting or competitive.

I don't plan on forcing the regions to do anything. I simply hope creating a CoG and removing regional Senate seats would lead to certain reforms (e.g. legislatures, removing Lt.Gov.). What the regions do is ultimately up to them.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2009, 10:52:36 pm »

I'm opposed to a bicameral, non-universalist system; weren't a lot of objections raised to universalism because it would create too much bureaucratic nonsense?

If we persist in forcing regional Senate seats on Atlasia (even if they're called "Governors"), let's put them on equal footing with normal seats, not cripple them even more.  If regional Senate seats aren't competitive (and they aren't) then I don't think taking power away will help that any Tongue

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.

So regions would be like the old districts but with a different name and more power? Tongue

The whole point of regions was originally to have distinct regional flavors, akin to states IRL, to contrast with districts, which would help ensure equal representation for all.  Regions with district-like shifting boundaries would essentially render regions even more carbon-copy-like than they are now.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2009, 11:02:25 pm »

I'm opposed to a bicameral, non-universalist system; weren't a lot of objections raised to universalism because it would create too much bureaucratic nonsense?

If we persist in forcing regional Senate seats on Atlasia (even if they're called "Governors"), let's put them on equal footing with normal seats, not cripple them even more.  If regional Senate seats aren't competitive (and they aren't) then I don't think taking power away will help that any Tongue

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.

So regions would be like the old districts but with a different name and more power? Tongue

The whole point of regions was originally to have distinct regional flavors, akin to states IRL, to contrast with districts, which would help ensure equal representation for all.  Regions with district-like shifting boundaries would essentially render regions even more carbon-copy-like than they are now.

There are many details that will be different.

How about you contribute to the discussion instead of blindly criticizing anything that isn't parliamentary universalism. Accept the political realities or get out.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 29, 2009, 11:05:12 pm »

I'm opposed to a bicameral, non-universalist system; weren't a lot of objections raised to universalism because it would create too much bureaucratic nonsense?

If we persist in forcing regional Senate seats on Atlasia (even if they're called "Governors"), let's put them on equal footing with normal seats, not cripple them even more.  If regional Senate seats aren't competitive (and they aren't) then I don't think taking power away will help that any Tongue

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.

So regions would be like the old districts but with a different name and more power? Tongue

The whole point of regions was originally to have distinct regional flavors, akin to states IRL, to contrast with districts, which would help ensure equal representation for all.  Regions with district-like shifting boundaries would essentially render regions even more carbon-copy-like than they are now.

We won't be crippling regional Senate seats or forcing them on Atlasia. We will be removing them altogether, thus making governor elections more competitive. And the CoG will be on equal footing with the national Senate seats.

And distinct regions is fine, but you can't have some massive regions and some almost empty. There needs to be a mechanism to make sure elections in all five regions are competitive, so that no one region falls into inactivity and uncompetitiveness because it has too few members to sustain activity.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 29, 2009, 11:08:25 pm »

I'm opposed to a bicameral, non-universalist system; weren't a lot of objections raised to universalism because it would create too much bureaucratic nonsense?

If we persist in forcing regional Senate seats on Atlasia (even if they're called "Governors"), let's put them on equal footing with normal seats, not cripple them even more.  If regional Senate seats aren't competitive (and they aren't) then I don't think taking power away will help that any Tongue

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.

So regions would be like the old districts but with a different name and more power? Tongue

The whole point of regions was originally to have distinct regional flavors, akin to states IRL, to contrast with districts, which would help ensure equal representation for all.  Regions with district-like shifting boundaries would essentially render regions even more carbon-copy-like than they are now.

We won't be crippling regional Senate seats or forcing them on Atlasia. We will be removing them altogether, thus making governor elections more competitive. And the CoG will be on equal footing with the national Senate seats.

And distinct regions is fine, but you can't have some massive regions and some almost empty. There needs to be a mechanism to make sure elections in all five regions are competitive, so that no one region falls into inactivity and uncompetitiveness because it has too few members to sustain activity.

Perhaps only allow the regions to be changed if one region falls below a certain percentage of the national population. Or maybe a flat number.
Logged
MaxQue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,087
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2009, 11:12:35 pm »

I'm opposed to a bicameral, non-universalist system; weren't a lot of objections raised to universalism because it would create too much bureaucratic nonsense?

If we persist in forcing regional Senate seats on Atlasia (even if they're called "Governors"), let's put them on equal footing with normal seats, not cripple them even more.  If regional Senate seats aren't competitive (and they aren't) then I don't think taking power away will help that any Tongue

A Midwest Assembly is great on paper, but would probably be a failure in practice. It simply isn't viable with the amount of citizens in the region.

More later, I'm tired.

Which is why we need redistricting, to make sure regions are adequately populated.

So regions would be like the old districts but with a different name and more power? Tongue

The whole point of regions was originally to have distinct regional flavors, akin to states IRL, to contrast with districts, which would help ensure equal representation for all.  Regions with district-like shifting boundaries would essentially render regions even more carbon-copy-like than they are now.

We won't be crippling regional Senate seats or forcing them on Atlasia. We will be removing them altogether, thus making governor elections more competitive. And the CoG will be on equal footing with the national Senate seats.

And distinct regions is fine, but you can't have some massive regions and some almost empty. There needs to be a mechanism to make sure elections in all five regions are competitive, so that no one region falls into inactivity and uncompetitiveness because it has too few members to sustain activity.

Perhaps only allow the regions to be changed if one region falls below a certain percentage of the national population. Or maybe a flat number.

Well, on a site I was before, they were refusing registrations for overpopulated regions, so the underpopulated regions were receving more new people.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC