Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
Seek75 said:
((EDIT: Well jeez BBB, way to break all the rules :p))
Click to expand...

I know, I'm so sorry.

As for the HRRA, or CVRA now, I'd say:

Strike Article IV, or make it so that it keeps the current system, but makes senatorial elections preference-based. That way it's fairer than it currently is, without the completely valid arguments of Governor Sullivan having to be made in regards to the senate.

I'd also change Article III a bit, removing the cap of 400 seats in the HoR, and instead having the no. of seats be redefined by an impartial commission after each census.
 
I just wanted to clarify that I do not vote based on who will give me a job. If you look at my voting record, you will see that if I am uncomfortable with a platform I tend to abstain until I can make an educated decision. Sometimes I do not vote at all due to this. Mr. Jarvis and I have a departure in policy but I am still his friend and believe he will do what is right for America.

Any way, I am pleased that President Jarvis will remain in office and I and my family present him with our most heartfelt congratulations and best wishes for another succesful four years.

In Service,
Walter Mandrake
Secretary for War
 
BigBadBob said:
Strike Article IV, or make it so that it keeps the current system, but makes senatorial elections preference-based. That way it's fairer than it currently is, without the completely valid arguments of Governor Sullivan having to be made in regards to the senate.

I'd also change Article III a bit, removing the cap of 400 seats in the HoR, and instead having the no. of seats be redefined by an impartial commission after each census.
Click to expand...

As the senate constituencies (states) are multi-member, the best preference based system is Single Transferable Vote; candidates would run on their own, not as part of parties, and independents can do well, especially garnering 2nd and 3rd preferences. Seeing as it is difficult to reallocate the ballots in proportion after a candidate is elected/defeated, I assume that they would have taken a random sample of the votes for that candidate to the sum of the remaining votes above the quota, but I suppose that it is up for the states to decide. The quota is defined by the Droop quota [(valid votes cast/no of seats +1)+1], but seeing as there is always 2 seats, it seems simpler just to say a third+1.

Meanwhile, in the house, the cap has been removed.
 
You know, I think I'll put these to a vote now, so that you guys can have something to do and debate about while you wait for me to get my shit together and write the full update.

So, the 19th Amendment (Presidential Voting Reform Act), 20th Amendment (Congressional Voting Reform Act) and Prisoner Voting Act all go to a vote. I will refrain from putting the Ease of Voting Act to a vote yet, since no definitive answer seems to have been given on the subject of proxy voting being removed or not, as that seems to be the main issue for most voters when the act is concerned.

Note: The 19th and 20th Amendments require a 2/3rds majority to pass.

I hadn't noticed the Justice Act until now, but it's unnecessary, as the Department of Justice has existed TTL for a while (Erica Hayden-Vallejo was Attorney-General during Harrison's second term at least, if memory serves).
 
I support the 19th Amendement and the 20th amendement.
-Maurice Horshington
 
I vote No to these Amendments

Proportional representation gives the political parties representation and influence rather than the people. The people should vote directly for their representatives not for a party.
 
No to both amendments.
 
Yes to both amendments, no to the Prisoner Voting Act.

Presidential Voting Reform in particular is a needed balance to equalize the power of everyone's votes rather than giving partiality to certain districts and demographics due to "winner gets all" strategies, as well as other problems with the electoral college. This was important at times when communication was slower and campaigning and spreading information about candidates was more difficult. Now, however, we must move with modern technology and go back to the heart of our democracy.
 
I vote yes to both amendments and the bill (surprisingly).

I implore the members of both houses to approve all of the proposals put before you; they are the best way to make politics more representative of the people, to uphold the ideals of equality, freedom and justice in which this great nation was founded and to prevent the country from becoming a collection of red states, blue states and green states, and ensure that we are always and forever the United States. It is with these ideals that these bills were crafted, where everyone's views were listened to and compromise was sought, and it is these ideals I hope that this Congress will be able to uphold by passing these proposals.

((Sorry, Mr Obama!))
 
Last edited:
Yes to both amendments, yes to the Prisoner Voting Act.
 
((Sorry for the absence... my powers been out due to the storms; I'm still a bit busy, but I'll make my opinions known on any bills I support, as well as my own proposal and such later on tonight))

I will abstain on the Presidential Voting Reform Amendment. It is a good proposal, and while I have great admiration for the system our Founder's devised, even they knew that the system would been changing. I am no great opponent of the Electoral College; indeed, another solid amendment would have been to move it to a proportional vote; and while I think this proposal is sound, I have my reservations. However, if this a close decision, I may reconsider my neutrality and vote in favour of it.

The second amendment, concerning the Congress, I will support; again I have my concerns, namely that this could greatly expand the powers of political factions... it is a better system than the one in place, though, so I believe the harm will b negligible

I also support the Prisoner Voting Act.

Also, since the people have granted me a second term as the President of these United States, I will announce my formal plans for the next four years, in the coming weeks ((again later tonight, at most tomorrow)). Thank you all for your support, and may God bless this great Union!
 
Last edited:
((Ignore and look at the one below))
 
Last edited:
((The 19th Amendment is not proportional representation, it's a slightly modified version of AV.))

Yes to both amendments. No to the prisoner voting act.

atomicsoda said:
I vote No to these Amendments

Proportional representation gives the political parties representation and influence rather than the people. The people should vote directly for their representatives not for a party.
Click to expand...

That is a good and decent argument against the 20th amendment (although not one I agree with) but why vote against the 19th? Since there is only one candidate per party, there is no way of separating people and parties in the presidential election.
 
While meandering through the thread, I found this absolute gem of a post in the aftermath of the 1860 Presidential Election, concerning whether we should support any European nations: [post=12674697]Here[/post]


Apparently, Mikeboy managed to predict the main reason for WWI half a century before he dragged the US into it. :D
 
Nay To both Amendments and Nay to the Prisoner Voting Act
 
yourworstnightm said:
No to both amendments. We need to have strong leaders.
No to the prisoner voting act. What's next? Allowing the dead to vote? Perhaps your dog should be able to vote too.
Click to expand...

How would a change in the voting system deprive our country of the leaders it deserves? Not only is this argument based on pure whim, not reason, but I think it is wrong. Surely the current system which promotes extremism and conflict is far worse than one which focuses on consensus, both in terms of letting the people's will be voiced and in terms of the leaders we can produce; have not the strongest candidates in our electoral history, not least the great President Cameron, emerged from the seeking of consensus against adversity?

Neither do I understand your reasoning regarding the Prisoner Voting Act, for it too seems based in nonsense, not reason; prisoners are people too, not some kind of animal that we can enslave and treat with disdain and aggression. Would you prevent those with mental problems from voting based on the fact they may seem to have sub-human intelligence? Just because they have done wrong, even slightly, we should not disenfranchise them, not least out of pragmatism, because that will only further prevent them from integrating from our society when they are released. If we remove all political rights in such a way we are making it more likely that they will re-offend. Furthermore, is this bill not reasonable in its approach? It allows for different levels of political status depending on the individual who has committed a crime, neither a blanket ban, degrading the status of even the most repentant of prisoners to that equivalent to the rights of slaves 100 years ago, nor an acceptance that all should have the vote, because some, through their crimes and their attitudes have shown that they should be removed from society entirely.

All of these proposals are there to further the freedoms and equality around us. They are there to allow for consensus and hope, over conflict and hatred. They are there to allow the everyone's voice to be heard and for justice to be done. We would all prefer freedom to slavery, equality to division, fairness to unfairness, justice to injustice, consensus to conflict, hope to hatred. So why, I ask this house, are you all so intent on preventing them being done by voting against these proposals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back