Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Who do I speak to for the job in the state department.

Narland, Rateria, Condealism

Communisim wrote:Who do I speak to for the job in the state department.

This fine gentleman: [nation=shortnoflag]Condealism[/nation]

Rateria

#pev4speacher

Pevvania, Rateria, Condealism

Does anybody remember when Cashnatchee was a major diplomatic player, and the region where the IDA Treaty was brokered? Con?

For you youngsters out there, in the Liberosia/Snabagag era in the very early stages of the First Republic, the IDA was our first attempt at creating an, er, interregional alliance. It was brokered with the IRU, New Republica, Federation of Free States, Central Pacific Empire, The Commonwealth of Crowns and Wolfmania, but never really amounted to much. Nevertheless, it was an important first step in spreading our wings internationally, and essentially became the template and forerunner to Reato. Crazy to see that almost all of these regions are dead or dying, except, of course, for Libertatem.

If I get 10 likes on this comment I'll write up a regional history of Libertatem.

Miencraft, Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Humpheria, Muh Roads, Rateria, Condealism, The Aradites, Venomringo, Libiceland, Jadentopian Order, Katzengrad

Pevvania wrote:Does anybody remember when Cashnatchee was a major diplomatic player, and the region where the IDA Treaty was brokered? Con?

For you youngsters out there, in the Liberosia/Snabagag era in the very early stages of the First Republic, the IDA was our first attempt at creating an, er, interregional alliance. It was brokered with the IRU, New Republica, Federation of Free States, Central Pacific Empire, The Commonwealth of Crowns and Wolfmania, but never really amounted to much. Nevertheless, it was an important first step in spreading our wings internationally, and essentially became the template and forerunner to Reato. Crazy to see that almost all of these regions are dead or dying, except, of course, for Libertatem.

If I get 10 likes on this comment I'll write up a regional history of Libertatem.

We also shouldn't forget The Free State of Bavaria, one of our first Managers of State, who pushed this treaty forward.

Rateria, Condealism

Local man masturbates for 10 days straight, becomes God

Pevvania, Muh Roads, Gaelic Eire Nua

Pevvania wrote:Does anybody remember when Cashnatchee was a major diplomatic player, and the region where the IDA Treaty was brokered? Con?

For you youngsters out there, in the Liberosia/Snabagag era in the very early stages of the First Republic, the IDA was our first attempt at creating an, er, interregional alliance. It was brokered with the IRU, New Republica, Federation of Free States, Central Pacific Empire, The Commonwealth of Crowns and Wolfmania, but never really amounted to much. Nevertheless, it was an important first step in spreading our wings internationally, and essentially became the template and forerunner to Reato. Crazy to see that almost all of these regions are dead or dying, except, of course, for Libertatem.

If I get 10 likes on this comment I'll write up a regional history of Libertatem.

You're at 6. That rounds up to 10.

Also I've been here longer than you and I command you as your senior to write up the history anyways.

And then once you write it up I'll see if I can redo it except in the Bill Wurtz style.

Pevvania, Rateria

Miencraft wrote:You're at 6. That rounds up to 10.

Also I've been here longer than you and I command you as your senior to write up the history anyways.

And then once you write it up I'll see if I can redo it except in the Bill Wurtz style.

And then I'll take a crack at it in the Lemony Snicket style.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria

Miencraft wrote:You're at 6. That rounds up to 10.

Also I've been here longer than you and I command you as your senior to write up the history anyways.

And then once you write it up I'll see if I can redo it except in the Bill Wurtz style.

*When it covers the Minerva Administration*

"Rateria just happens to be a crappy strategist and gets Libertatem into a nuclear war, and they have a great time fighting with the communists, and then they get blown to smithereens in a nuclear hellfire."

The States Of Balloon wrote:Why is my flag sideways

Because the picture is sideways.

You're starting to remind me of someone...

Rateria, The Aradites

Rateria wrote:*When it covers the Minerva Administration*

"Rateria just happens to be a crappy strategist and gets Libertatem into a nuclear war, and they have a great time fighting with the communists, and then they get blown to smithereens in a nuclear hellfire."

"and then they die in a tornado"

Rateria

Quiet

Pevvania, Rateria, Condealism

Hurray I have been made an Advisor for the State Department!

Also I'm a democracy now!

Rateria, Condealism

Gotta love having a physics teacher who hates you, otherwise I wouldn't have put in the effort to build a life size catapult to show him up.

Narland, Rateria

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Gotta love having a physics teacher who hates you, otherwise I wouldn't have put in the effort to build a life size catapult to show him up.

If I were your physics teacher I'd still give negative points for it not being a trebuchet, since trebuchets are clearly the objectively superior siege engine.

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, The States Of Balloon

The E.I.R.E legislation will be out shortly.

Also, why has the Rainbow Party not been added as an official party yet?

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:The E.I.R.E legislation will be out shortly.

Also, why has the Rainbow Party not been added as an official party yet?

Sorry, haven't been on the archives today.

With these kinds of things expect a one to two day wait, although I'm quite sure I'll do it tonight.

Legislation is out

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=gaelic_eire_nua/detail=factbook/id=825709

Miencraft wrote:If I were your physics teacher I'd still give negative points for it not being a trebuchet, since trebuchets are clearly the objectively superior siege engine.

Couldn't another student took that idea but theirs is a mini 6ft catapult where as mine at full extent is 12+ ft

Narland, Rateria

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:Legislation is out

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=gaelic_eire_nua/detail=factbook/id=825709

To put this as delicately as possible: this legislation is rather severely ill-conceived and the implementation is worse. There are grammatical mistakes throughout and it ignores significant procedures in our government.

Further, the nature of the affect that this legislation would have would make it more appropriate as an amendment to the Constitution as it inherently changes processes established in this document.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Humpheria wrote:To put this as delicately as possible: this legislation is rather severely ill-conceived and the implementation is worse. There are grammatical mistakes throughout and it ignores significant procedures in our government.

Further, the nature of the affect that this legislation would have would make it more appropriate as an amendment to the Constitution as it inherently changes processes established in this document.

How could I have guessed you'd be against it?

I don't understand how it is ill conceived, it was conceived with the idea that a first past the post system is undemocratic, as the winner isn't always favored by a majority. What grammatical errors? Also, what "significant procedures" does it overlook?

If this requires an amendment, then I'll submit it as an amendment.

I find it ironic how democrats tout FDR even though in 1932, he wanted to cut government spending by 25%, eliminating useless agencies, and returning authority to state and local governments as he thought the federal governments had unjustly seized it.

Communisim wrote:Hurray I have been made an Advisor for the State Department!

Also I'm a democracy now!

"democracy"

Rateria, Gaelic Eire Nua

Communisim wrote:Hurray I have been made an Advisor for the State Department!

Also I'm a democracy now!

Also, congrats.

Rateria, Gaelic Eire Nua

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:Legislation is out

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=gaelic_eire_nua/detail=factbook/id=825709

I guess the idea makes sense, there is the problem of wording and grammar.

The main problems I have in terms of content are, it seems as if there would be too many runoff elections, one seems sufficient.

Another problem is I wanted to implement some sort of districting in the near future and I think this would restrict that.

Pevvania, Humpheria, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Long hours and low pay makes the working man happy

Hyderbourg wrote:I guess the idea makes sense, there is the problem of wording and grammar.

The main problems I have in terms of content are, it seems as if there would be too many runoff elections, one seems sufficient.

Another problem is I wanted to implement some sort of districting in the near future and I think this would restrict that.

There can always be compromises and changes.

Rateria, Gaelic Eire Nua

Inissbeln wrote:There can always be compromises and changes.

Exactly; I'm not rejecting the bill, just pointing out concerns.

Rateria, Condealism, Inissbeln

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:How could I have guessed you'd be against it?

I don't understand how it is ill conceived, it was conceived with the idea that a first past the post system is undemocratic, as the winner isn't always favored by a majority. What grammatical errors? Also, what "significant procedures" does it overlook?

If this requires an amendment, then I'll submit it as an amendment.

I appreciate the disrespectful remark, as I think we both agreed to just two days ago, please at least make an effort to remain civil.

It is ill conceived in that it drastically complicates our election process only in the name of an incremental change. We are a republic, not a pure democracy. This is an unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy and drawn out elections. For what? To eliminate experienced public servants? To complicate the process of electing leaders? This short piece of legislation will throw the election process into uncertainty with its lack of substance. It creates more problems than it solves.

You are more than welcome to adapt it as an amendment but just to clarify you can't submit it, you need to find a Senator to introduce it. If that happens, I look forward to the lively debate that will surely follow.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Hyderbourg wrote:I guess the idea makes sense, there is the problem of wording and grammar.

The main problems I have in terms of content are, it seems as if there would be too many runoff elections, one seems sufficient.

Another problem is I wanted to implement some sort of districting in the near future and I think this would restrict that.

What wording and grammar differences are there? I can't find any. However, I speak in a rather Irish way (like saying "me apple" instead of "my apple"), so, maybe there is problems with that. Please tell me.

It depends how many candidates there are. If there are 10 candidates running, it would be foolish to just have one election. That is why one must achieve a clear majority, which is realistic.

Yes, it would restrict that. However, this is for the current time. Just because you "plan" on doing something in the future doesn't mean this bill is worth less. Let's focus on this bill first.

Rateria, Inissbeln

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:What wording and grammar differences are there? I can't find any. However, I speak in a rather Irish way (like saying "me apple" instead of "my apple"), so, maybe there is problems with that. Please tell me.

It depends how many candidates there are. If there are 10 candidates running, it would be foolish to just have one election. That is why one must achieve a clear majority, which is realistic.

Yes, it would restrict that. However, this is for the current time. Just because you "plan" on doing something in the future doesn't mean this bill is worth less. Let's focus on this bill first.

If this is a temporary solution until the districting bill, why not just skip the middle step and draft that bill instead...

Rateria, Hyderbourg

Humpheria wrote:I appreciate the disrespectful remark, as I think we both agreed to just two days ago, please at least make an effort to remain civil.

It is ill conceived in that it drastically complicates our election process only in the name of an incremental change. We are a republic, not a pure democracy. This is an unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy and drawn out elections. For what? To eliminate experienced public servants? To complicate the process of electing leaders? This short piece of legislation will throw the election process into uncertainty with its lack of substance. It creates more problems than it solves.

You are more than welcome to adapt it as an amendment but just to clarify you can't submit it, you need to find a Senator to introduce it. If that happens, I look forward to the lively debate that will surely follow.

I am not being disrespectful, I have attempted to make friends several times and you have ignored them and have continued to be cruel. And yes, let's keep it civil.

It does not "complicate" it, it makes the system more democratic. Run off elections are a common thing, and I have no idea where the elimination of public servants will occur, as that would only be specific cases.

Yes, this is a republic. That doesn't mean we can't be more democratic, this bill has nothing to do with changing the fact that we elect representatives to vote for us and for representation, it makes it so the election of said representatives is more majority based, not just first past the post.

Humpheria wrote:I appreciate the disrespectful remark, as I think we both agreed to just two days ago, please at least make an effort to remain civil.

It is ill conceived in that it drastically complicates our election process only in the name of an incremental change. We are a republic, not a pure democracy. This is an unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy and drawn out elections. For what? To eliminate experienced public servants? To complicate the process of electing leaders? This short piece of legislation will throw the election process into uncertainty with its lack of substance. It creates more problems than it solves.

You are more than welcome to adapt it as an amendment but just to clarify you can't submit it, you need to find a Senator to introduce it. If that happens, I look forward to the lively debate that will surely follow.

Hate to say it but I agree with this guy. This is supposed to be a republic not a democracy, it is an interesting concept for a democratic region however this one is not. Also I doubt this legislation would improve the current system due to the fact that I personally believe since there are many worthy candidates that it would take too long but that is my personal idea.

Condealism

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Hate to say it but I agree with this guy. This is supposed to be a republic not a democracy, it is an interesting concept for a democratic region however this one is not. Also I doubt this legislation would improve the current system due to the fact that I personally believe since there are many worthy candidates that it would take too long but that is my personal idea.

Hate to say it? #hurt #thoughtwewerefriends

Supting wrote:If this is a temporary solution until the districting bill, why not just skip the middle step and draft that bill instead...

Because this districting bill isn't even a thing yet. This bill is what is being discussed, we have no certainty that a districting bill will be passed and so on, and since this bill is first, that bill should be the one making provisions. Not this bill, as it comes before it

Rateria

Supting wrote:If this is a temporary solution until the districting bill, why not just skip the middle step and draft that bill instead...

This makes sense to me, but whatever, I'm not a fancy senator like you guys...

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:Hate to say it but I agree with this guy. This is supposed to be a republic not a democracy, it is an interesting concept for a democratic region however this one is not. Also I doubt this legislation would improve the current system due to the fact that I personally believe since there are many worthy candidates that it would take too long but that is my personal idea.

Again, this bill does not change the fact that this is a republic. It makes it so the representatives we choose are more alligned with the majority. It doesn't establish this region as a democracy.

Inissbeln

Yes, I agree with Humpheria...Our current system is working just fine and you know what they say, "if it ain't broken don't fix it."

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Hyderbourg wrote:This makes sense to me, but whatever, I'm not a fancy senator like you guys...

Because your bill is a concept right now. Why should I be worried about what you're doing in the future while I'm writing this bill? This bill is focused on reforming the system asap, not waiting until your bill passes.

Venomringo wrote:Yes, I agree with Humpheria...Our current system is working just fine and you know what they say, "if it ain't broken don't fix it."

Hey buddy, we're waitin' for ya on discord!

Venomringo

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:Because this districting bill isn't even a thing yet. This bill is what is being discussed, we have no certainty that a districting bill will be passed and so on, and since this bill is first, that bill should be the one making provisions. Not this bill, as it comes before it

To be fair we have no certainty that this bill will be passed and so on. Districting is something we've been talking about for a while we're just waiting on population to be at a sufficient number. It'd be irresponsible to ignore it because if it does come to a vote it would surely alter the affect of the proposed legislation.

Pevvania, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Venomringo wrote:Yes, I agree with Humpheria...Our current system is working just fine and you know what they say, "if it ain't broken don't fix it."

This isn't the point of the bill. I am not saying the system is broken. I'm saying it leads to the potential of a person being elected to an office without having majority support, as I stated in the preamble. This bill makes it more representative of ALL the people.

Inissbeln

Humpheria wrote:To be fair we have no certainty that this bill will be passed and so on. Districting is something we've been talking about for a while we're just waiting on population to be at a sufficient number. It'd be irresponsible to ignore it because if it does come to a vote it would surely alter the affect of the proposed legislation.

I never said this bill will be passed with certainty, I am saying that THIS BILL IS WRITTEN ALREADY. I have no use to provision it in order to fit the standards of a future bill. That makes absolutely no sense. The bill that should be making provisions is the one on districting as it comes AFTER this bill.

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:Again, this bill does not change the fact that this is a republic. It makes it so the representatives we choose are more alligned with the majority. It doesn't establish this region as a democracy.

I agree it doesn't change it but theoretically speaking this can make presidential elections quite more time consuming, and with more nations joining it appears to me this causes a terrible scaling problem. And I agree that since the districting bill isn't instituted it has no reason to be brought into account because it could easily fail.

Humpheria, Condealism

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:I never said this bill will be passed with certainty, I am saying that THIS BILL IS WRITTEN ALREADY. I have no use to provision it in order to fit the standards of a future bill. That makes absolutely no sense. The bill that should be making provisions is the one on districting as it comes AFTER this bill.

As I said, the future bill would surely adapt, or even repeal, parts of this legislation (should it pass). From a theoretical point of view, you are correct. But practically, the districting bill has already received statements of support from the majority of the Senators and Government. It would be wise to take it into account.

Condealism

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:I agree it doesn't change it but theoretically speaking this can make presidential elections quite more time consuming, and with more nations joining it appears to me this causes a terrible scaling problem. And I agree that since the districting bill isn't instituted it has no reason to be brought into account because it could easily fail.

Yes, it makes it more time consuming as there would be multiple elections. This is a small price to pay considering the majority of the people will be satisfied with the electorate, and not first the first past the post voters.

That's what I'm saying.

Inissbeln

Humpheria wrote:As I said, the future bill would surely adapt, or even repeal, parts of this legislation (should it pass). From a theoretical point of view, you are correct. But practically, the districting bill has already received statements of support from the majority of the Senators and Government. It would be wise to take it into account.

I have no issue with adaptions or repealments in the future, however, I have no use of discussing a future bill that might have issues if this bill passes, as I am focused on getting this bill passed.

No, it wouldn't be wise. It would shatter the whole point of this bill.

New nations wouldn't have an effect- the only thing that would have an effect would be more citizens voting or running, which could happen regardless if this bill was passed or not. This is irrelevant.

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:I have no issue with adaptions or repealments in the future, however, I have no use of discussing a future bill that might have issues if this bill passes, as I am focused on getting this bill passed.

No, it wouldn't be wise. It would shatter the whole point of this bill.

You sure do type fast, Jesus. Props for that.

As I said, I look forward to debating this legislation if it is introduced in the Senate.

The Completly Oppressive States, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Humpheria wrote:You sure do type fast, Jesus. Props for that.

As I said, I look forward to debating this legislation if it is introduced in the Senate.

I type fast because the arguments being put foward in opposition to the bill are fairly easy to put to bed.

So do I.

Humpheria wrote:As I said, the future bill would surely adapt, or even repeal, parts of this legislation (should it pass). From a theoretical point of view, you are correct. But practically, the districting bill has already received statements of support from the majority of the Senators and Government. It would be wise to take it into account.

Speaking of districting, I've come up with an idea for the Map of Libertatem: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=condealism/detail=factbook/id=825728

Rateria, Hyderbourg, Jadentopian Order, Pulceria

Having been on NS for a while now, I can say that complex election processes really don't work well for a region of our size. Places with extremely active regions such as the Pacifics and the other massive regions would suit an election system other than FPP.

Rateria, Condealism

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:Yes, it makes it more time consuming as there would be multiple elections. This is a small price to pay considering the majority of the people will be satisfied with the electorate, and not first the first past the post voters.

That's what I'm saying.

I think it'd be better to have a few revisions to this bill such as having a two based elections having a similar minimum of voter limit but a bit higher than the proposed amount similar to a primary system but of course have it basing all party heads instead of candidate under a single party.

Condealism wrote:Speaking of districting, I've come up with an idea for the Map of Libertatem: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=condealism/detail=factbook/id=825728

God damn that is good

Rateria, Condealism, Hyderbourg

Here's my opinion on that proposal:

It overcomplicates a system that works just fine for us, and has always worked throughout our history as a region.

And, besides, we're too small to do anything other than "you get the most votes, you win".

Really though, we don't need anything more complicated than that. There's a vote, you get more votes than everyone else, you win.

Pevvania, Humpheria, Rateria, Condealism, Hyderbourg

We'd need roughly ten times our current number of active voters to derive any significant logistical benefit from a voting system other than first past the post.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria

Condealism wrote:Speaking of districting, I've come up with an idea for the Map of Libertatem: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=condealism/detail=factbook/id=825728

That... is a good map.

Rateria, Condealism, Hyderbourg

Get these marginalized individuals off of my property

Condealism wrote:Speaking of districting, I've come up with an idea for the Map of Libertatem: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=condealism/detail=factbook/id=825728

Good job bruh

Rateria, Condealism, Inissbeln

So that's a damn fine map, but I'm still going to hand-draw my own version one day, see what people like more.

Plus, we can still just use that map generator Condy used to make something that'll work for everyone anyways.

Rateria, Condealism

The Aradites wrote:Having been on NS for a while now, I can say that complex election processes really don't work well for a region of our size. Places with extremely active regions such as the Pacifics and the other massive regions would suit an election system other than FPP.

If you wanna bring anecdotal arguments, I've implemented this voting system in another region and it worked out great.

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:I think it'd be better to have a few revisions to this bill such as having a two based elections having a similar minimum of voter limit but a bit higher than the proposed amount similar to a primary system but of course have it basing all party heads instead of candidate under a single party.

There's no need for that, as it's based on percentages, not quantity. It doesn't matter how many people run or vote, it's all decided by 100/the number of candidates. Whoever meets that percentage, makes it to the runoff. It has no changes according to the quantities.

Miencraft wrote:Here's my opinion on that proposal:

It overcomplicates a system that works just fine for us, and has always worked throughout our history as a region.

And, besides, we're too small to do anything other than "you get the most votes, you win".

Really though, we don't need anything more complicated than that. There's a vote, you get more votes than everyone else, you win.

Again, it doesn't matter about the number of voters. It's based on percentages.

Miencraft wrote:So that's a damn fine map, but I'm still going to hand-draw my own version one day, see what people like more.

Plus, we can still just use that map generator Condy used to make something that'll work for everyone anyways.

Exactly. Theoretically, we wouldn't even need a single curator to maintain the map; in order to get a zoomed-in map of an area, we'd simply share parameters.

Miencraft

Condealism wrote:We'd need roughly ten times our current number of active voters to derive any significant logistical benefit from a voting system other than first past the post.

No we wouldn't, the bill is based on percentages.

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:If you wanna bring anecdotal arguments, I've implemented this voting system in another region and it worked out great.

There's no need for that, as it's based on percentages, not quantity. It doesn't matter how many people run or vote, it's all decided by 100/the number of candidates. Whoever meets that percentage, makes it to the runoff. It has no changes according to the quantities.

Again, it doesn't matter about the number of voters. It's based on percentages.

Which region?

Humpheria, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:Again, it doesn't matter about the number of voters. It's based on percentages.

Okay, but how do you address the problem of this being far too complicated in the first place? We have barely any activity as it is, the only way our voting system even works is because we use FPP.

And my most important question: FPP has worked just fine for our entire regional history. It's not broken. Why does it need to be changed?

Rateria, Condealism

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:No we wouldn't, the bill is based on percentages.

Alright, Mr. Percentages, calculate for me the likelihood that the results of a vote in which the same ballots are cast would differ between the current and proposed systems given the number of voters we have. Here's a hint: It's directly proportional to the number of voters we have.

Condealism wrote:Speaking of districting, I've come up with an idea for the Map of Libertatem: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=condealism/detail=factbook/id=825728

Fantastic work, dude!

Rateria, Condealism

The Aradites wrote:Which region?

Second this inquiry

Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order, Pulceria

There really isn't any point in arguing about the proposed legislation as is. Will any of my colleagues sponsor and support this legislation?

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:If you wanna bring anecdotal arguments, I've implemented this voting system in another region and it worked out great.

There's no need for that, as it's based on percentages, not quantity. It doesn't matter how many people run or vote, it's all decided by 100/the number of candidates. Whoever meets that percentage, makes it to the runoff. It has no changes according to the quantities.

Again, it doesn't matter about the number of voters. It's based on percentages.

My point is to reduce the time and still have a system you are looking for is to find a way to cap the maximum elections off a little earlier by having a similar system you speak of but split the run off elections by having a few elections and gradually enforce a placing system or similar (first round max uncapped, second all falling under % cut and lowest few above % also cut etc.) I dunno personally I like the idea and concept but I personally don't like the time expansion if the scaling is harsh on it. Again I'm not a senator just a constituent of you reps.

fptp sucks. It has been rated worst by all electoral scientists.

Gaelic Eire Nua

Republic Of Minerva wrote:fptp sucks. It has been rated worst by all electoral scientists.

Source? (Not related to bill)

Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Condealism wrote:Speaking of districting, I've come up with an idea for the Map of Libertatem: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=condealism/detail=factbook/id=825728

Where's my f*cking archipelago

Republic Of Minerva, Muh Roads, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

The States Of Balloon wrote:Where's my f*cking archipelago

Obviously that wouldn't be the final map; for one, it doesn't have my islands.

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:I find it ironic how democrats tout FDR even though in 1932, he wanted to cut government spending by 25%, eliminating useless agencies, and returning authority to state and local governments as he thought the federal governments had unjustly seized it.

Unfortunately, in office he did the opposite of all of these, and proceeded to lengthen the Depression by a decade as a result.

The States Of Balloon wrote:Where's my f*cking archipelago

Miencraft wrote:Obviously that wouldn't be the final map; for one, it doesn't have my islands.

:(

The Aradites wrote:Which region?

Humpheria wrote:Second this inquiry

Holy Rome.

Miencraft wrote:Okay, but how do you address the problem of this being far too complicated in the first place? We have barely any activity as it is, the only way our voting system even works is because we use FPP.

And my most important question: FPP has worked just fine for our entire regional history. It's not broken. Why does it need to be changed?

It's not complicated. At all. Candidates who meet the treshold move on to the general election. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

Because the results of the election doesn't allign with the majority of voters.

Condealism wrote:Alright, Mr. Percentages, calculate for me the likelihood that the results of a vote in which the same ballots are cast would differ between the current and proposed systems given the number of voters we have. Here's a hint: It's directly proportional to the number of voters we have.

I'm not sure I understand your question, the likelihood of the same votes being casted differing in these systems? This bill is just making it so there will be a runoff election, as FPP doesn't represent the majority accurately.

Humpheria wrote:There really isn't any point in arguing about the proposed legislation as is. Will any of my colleagues sponsor and support this legislation?

Then why are you arguing it?

The Completly Oppressive States wrote:My point is to reduce the time and still have a system you are looking for is to find a way to cap the maximum elections off a little earlier by having a similar system you speak of but split the run off elections by having a few elections and gradually enforce a placing system or similar (first round max uncapped, second all falling under % cut and lowest few above % also cut etc.) I dunno personally I like the idea and concept but I personally don't like the time expansion if the scaling is harsh on it. Again I'm not a senator just a constituent of you reps.

I see your point. However, the % would change according to each run off, since the number of candidates lowers each run off, a path to the clear majority is far easier.

Condealism wrote::(

Don't worry, I want some of the mainland

Rateria, Condealism

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:Holy Rome.

https://www.nationstates.net/region=holy_rome this Holy Rome?

Good night, all. If the proposed legislation gets introduced tonight, I will vote on it in the morning.

Pevvania, Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:https://www.nationstates.net/region=holy_rome this Holy Rome?

Yes. I was Chancellor of Legislation there.

Unfortunately, [nation=short]Gaelic Eire Nua[/nation], I will not be sponsoring your bill (which should be an amendment).

As one of the dudes who came up with the current system, and someone who's been here for nearly 4 years now, I can tell you that we've never had any of the problems that you're intimidating would be addressed by this bill. Our region is not very split along ideological lines. Most real differences occur based on foreign policy, and that's only occasionally. Basically: we're very good at getting along. Most of our presidents have been elected by sweeping majorities of the popular vote, if not unanimously, and I can't think of many cases where Senators or Board members were elected with pluralities.

Basically, Eire, you're trying to fix a non-existent problem. The flaw of this bill lies in the preamble: "Recognizing that the first past the post system has the potential to put the candidate the majority of the population voted against"

It's just that - a potential problem, if even that. And every system has potential problems, including STV. Bottom line is that this system has worked for us and has produced a fantastic president, cabinet and Senate. So what change it?

Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

Condealism wrote::(

I think it's great, Condealism. We can figure things out.

Rateria, Condealism

Anyone have a list of all the RLP members?

Rhttp://democracyjournal.org/arguments/ranked-choice-voting-is-not-the-solution/

Democracy is a failure of a system. We should abolish it immediately and make all decisions in this region voluntary.

Post self-deleted by Inissbeln.

That's a brilliant example, winner take all.

Inissbeln wrote:Well with states like California (huge population, mostly democrats, 55 electoral votes) this is absolutely a problem. Every time the democrats win those 55 votes.

In that case, one must change the scoring system of Football. What a retarded argument.

Condealism

God dammit, why'd half of everyone go offline as soon as I join?

Rateria, Condealism

Post self-deleted by Inissbeln.

Inissbeln wrote:Well with states like California (huge population, mostly democrats, 55 electoral votes) this is absolutely a problem. Every time the democrats win those 55 votes.

Not necessarily the electoral votes in California are a huge lead but the electoral system of winner gets all in most states make the flyover states quite powerful in numbers whereas compared by population they are statistically insignificant. And the problem in California tends to be the government heavily pushing legislation that makes cities very dependent on a welfare program that democrats scream republicans will destroy instantly which may or may not be true but scaremongering works often for them

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:Because the results of the election doesn't allign with the majority of voters.

I'm not sure I understand your question, the likelihood of the same votes being casted differing in these systems? This bill is just making it so there will be a runoff election, as FPP doesn't represent the majority accurately.

This is true for countries like the United States, where there are numerous potential candidates and tens of millions of voters. We, however, only have a couple dozen possible candidates/voters. The ratio of voters to candidates is a lot smaller (reducing the risk of an upset), the number of permutations of election outcomes is far smaller than that (reducing the overall likelihood of a pluralistic but non-majoristic outcome), and the number of candidates who would benefit from a runoff election under your system (in the unlikely event an upset or non-majoristic plurality occurs) would never exceed four (and this would, in all but a few cases, result in the would-be winner's victory anyway).

In other words, we'd be implementing a ton of redundant procedures that would rarely - if ever - come into use, and be of negligible benefit when they do.

Miencraft, Rateria, Jadentopian Order

I wasn't quite thinking about what I was saying when I said that.

A run off system would also be more efficient, as voters would have multiple options.

Gaelic Eire Nua wrote:A run off system would also be more efficient, as voters would have multiple options.

But we've never had a problem with options, even in the recent Senate elections with the record number of candidates and turnout. So what's the issue?

Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots

tfw you realize you misused the word "majoristic"

The Completly Oppressive States, Rateria, Inissbeln

Hey Con, sweet map. You did a great job and I'd be happy to support that becoming the official map of Libertatem.

Rateria, Condealism

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.