Forum:Federal States/Federal States Congress
What is this forum post about?
This is a continuation of the frequent talks in the discord server regarding the legislative body of the country, or the congress, which is composed of the upper house (Senate of the Federal States) and the lower house (General Assembly of the Federal States). This discussion aims to reach the number of seats for the lower house, the number of representatives on the upper house per state and deciding whether the politics of both chambers are going to revolve around a coalition led system or an individual party system (like the real life US). Other smaller topics that revolve around the same theme are also welcome such as regional (not acting in one single state) parties.
What have we settled with for now?
Right now the unofficial setup caps the lower house at 325, which was a randomly chosen number used to calculate seats in this spreadsheet, we are also using a coalition led system, with each stateowner choosing which party acts in their state. An example would be the F&D Party in Apawiland coalitioning with the Federalist Party in Mennowa and West Massodeya to enact laws on a compromise. This system would be akin to the ones in countries like Germany. The upper house hasn't been discussed, but it is set as 2 senators per state (the upper house is likely not going to be capped to prevent states having decimals in their senator number).
The results of this initial discussion was the creation of this map that exposes what we can achieve with making these topics cannon. (to be posted)
Jr000 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
Upper House (Senate)
Lower House (General Assembly/House of Representatives)
This topic is getting into the world-building weeds a bit, but I think it still has some import and some minor implications for the map. There are a couple outstanding issues that we face right now in trying to figure out any apportionment. First, we still have some states that are available and could impact any percentage-based apportionment. Second, there are still a few states where the population is questionable at best. Third, we always face the potential of changeover in the future.
As a result of all that, I would propose that we go with a rolling apportionment based on a fixed population per representative. While this does run the risk of people overinflating their populations, it allows us to keep things pretty constant and not have to realign everything every time a state properly corrects its population, becomes owned, or is withdrawn. Interestingly, we could pin things off of the smallest state. At the moment, Roguemont is the smallest at 250,000 residents. If that number were to become the fixed basis as the smallest state, we can either base representatives right off that threshold or use a simple multiplier. This gives the smallest state a touch of over-representation, but it gives us a meaningful baseline. If the Federal States were to have a total population of 235 million, we could have an approximate tally like this:
| No multiplier (250,000 per rep.) |
1.25 multiplier (312,000 per rep.) |
1.5 multiplier (375,000 per rep.) |
|---|---|---|
| ~940 representatives | ~752 representatives | ~626 representatives |
Alternatively, we could peg it to a forumla-derived number that would have historically rolled higher over the years. We would not have to come up with the hard formula, as we could probably retcon it later. Importantly, this pulls it away from making it contingent on a state-owner's cooperation and occupation of that territory. Under this type of scenario, that number would not rise fast, as some states would not want lose too many representatives even if they lost percentage of power by being eclipsed in population. In a way, this system is aligned with the 1789 Congressional Apportionment Amendment that stalled out one state-vote short of ratification (and is still technically open). Given how close it was to becoming part of the Bill of Rights (Connecticut Senate did not approve but its House did), it is certainly within verisimilitude to use this type of a system.
| 300,000 per rep. | 350,000 per rep. | 400,000 per rep. | 450,000 per rep. |
|---|---|---|---|
| ~783 representatives | ~671 representatives | ~588 representatives | ~522 representatives |
At first glance, these numbers seem astronomical compared to the United States, but the country was on course for this until the Reapportionment Act of 1929 fixed the congressional cap at 435 instead of increasing it to 483 in the 1932 election. I think having 600–700 representatives is actually an interesting proposition, because it theoretically dilutes the ability of the Federal congress to operate at a deeply centralized capacity. President Madison talked about the risks and tradeoffs of Congress getting too large, and I think that our slightly-more decentralized FSA would align well with the inflated congressional numbers. If we had about 600 representatives, it amplifies the need for our coalitions to work and gives room for local ideologies and parties to be amplified. Something for us to consider. — Alessa (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, given the size of the FSA, and that there's more states compared to the USA's 50, I won't actually be surprised if the number of seats in the lower house would be at least 600, or even higher. Even a few smaller nations have their lower house seats around that number: 577 for France (66 million people), 630 for Germany's Bundestag (82 million), 580 for Indonesia's People's Consultative Assembly (270 million), and 500 for Thailand's House of Representatives (64 million).--Zhenkang (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I really like the idea of the system following a fixed population/representative, though given that the reason given was to avoid change, I think that going with a population threshold might be better than pegging it to the smallest state, since that can change over time. I have no personal preference for an exact threshold, but I do think that a number<400000 population could work really well so that most stateowners have more than one district. Jr000 (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea of having the total size of the legislature "float" based on population-per-representative, but from a more meta perspective that (and the larger apportionment conversation) by necessity should also include some consideration of how we can make sure each state's population is realistic. --TheMayor (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we need to look at each state's population realistically; the least dense in the FSA (at least those that I could find population figures for) is Apawiland (46 people/sq mi), which would rank 38th in the United States, between Colorado (57) and Maine (45). Meanwhile, we have two states that are denser than New Jersey (1263), those being Passamaqueets (2145) and Penquisset (2203). Of those that have area and population, there are also only seven states that would rank in the bottom half if they were in the United States, while there are twenty-one that would rank in the top half. While some of this may be due to a larger number of states on the east coast and lakes area of the FSA being active compared to the center of the country, where many of the least dense states would likely be, this is still very top-heavy. I myself may be guilty of this as well, with my state's population density being between that of Georgia and Virginia (16th and 15th in the USA).
- On the actual idea of a Congress itself, I agree that fixing it to the lowest-population state would lead to potentially changing everything around if someone is approved for a state less populous than the current least-populous state. If we had a congress of fewer than 400,000 people per representative, then that would only cause one state (Apawiland) to have only one representative—at least out of those I could find. PoisonDog522 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- While I agree there is a chronic overestimation of population, it is also important to recognize how states in the FSA are generally smaller when compared to real life, and small states with big cities such as Passamaqueets end up with significantly higher densities than their real life counterparts. I did a very careful county by county (sometimes even by municipality) breakdown of my state to calculate the ideal population and it is still higher than New Jersey, at ~1500. I also encourage other states to do the same, if not a breakdown of the state by general regions using the relation area calculator. Jr000 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- As it has been around 10 months since the discussion on the apportionment system started, we will be voting on one of the proposals above soon, any new proposals and other closing thoughts will have a bit more time to be presented before the vote is held. If nothing is brought up the voting process on this topic will initiate in a week. Jr000 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
I agree that determining the amount of seats based on a population threshold is a good idea, and I would advocate for roughly 300-325k people per representative. From Zhenkang's examples of these European countries, it seems like we should definitely have more than 600 representatives since these countries (excluding Indonesia) have around a quarter the population of the Federal States. Indonesia's cap of 580 representatives for a population of 270m however also reminds me that it still is important to have some sort of upper limit. If a country of that size (like the FSA) were to have 2000 representatives, it would make it extremely difficult to have a coordinated government response to any nationally pressing issues. This is just a thought, but perhaps we could put the representative cap on a kind of curve (negative exponential) that makes it progressively harder to add seats as the population grows, with the asymptote/cap being around 1000. JustSomeMapper (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- I like Alessa's second proposal for determining how representatives are divided out among the states and agreed that somewhere around 600 would be an interesting number in terms of encouraging coalition and allowing regional diversity. Ruadh (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
Per Jr's comment above about voting, I am officially proposing (barring major objections) that we put the vote per what I laid out above as options. There seems to be some degree of agreement that trying to apportion based on a fixed representative number is an exercise in futility. So, the question becomes what we're going to peg the person-per-representative ratio to. Here would be how the vote would lay out in this situation:
- Question 1 A float based on multiplier of smallest-state population or a float based on a population threshold.
- Question 2 What multiplier of smallest-state population should that option win (1.25 or 1.5 multiplier of Roguemont)
- Question 3 What population threshold should that option win. (300k, 350k, 400k, 450k per representative)
So, this gives us the option to decide if it is pegged to an in-universe state or an in-universe number (that would have been historically adjusted over time) and what outcome we would prefer. If we wanted different multipliers or thresholds, we should consider those now. I think a case could be made that a 300k threshold gets too many reps but 325k might be better for consideration. I don't want a paralysis of options, but we should refine it now, so that our vote can be set for the first part of August (during the omnibus). — Alessa (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Politics/Party system
Considering the current precedent of state/regional parties, I propose that every presidential election is nonpartisan. Under this proposal, state parties would have conventions within themselves to determine which candidates to select and/or endorse. Alternatively, state parties could form coalitions with those of other states to select a candidate.ItsTybear (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
For congressional elections, states could elect candidates of any present political party. If mappers worry about this getting too complex, there could alternatively be a coalition-based system for these congressional seats. Zakahigan has 5 political parties, but the state's federal congressional elections will just be liberal/conservative, whatever those party names will be. ItsTybear (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
A list of every state's political parties is in the works. Message ItsTybear if you would like them in that document. ItsTybear (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Regional Parties Listing
Note: This list is reserved for cross-state parties, single state parties should not be in the list unless they are expecting more states to have it
| Party | Broad Definition (singular axis) | Description | States/Regions available | List of States Currently Using | Coalition | Sponsor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faith & Democracy (F&D) | Far-Left | Christian socialism led by the Parsonites; minor branches feature moderate Christian democracy instead | Cordilleras, areas with Parsonite presence. | AW, MS, SV, RS | iiEarth | |
| Green Party (GRN) | Left | Green Politics | Nationwide | PA, HY, ZH, NC | Jr000 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC),
CharlieG | |
| Unionist Party (UNI) | Left | Fiscal progressivism, socially left or center-left, larger government, prefers national influences (not a Democratic Party counterpart) | Nationwide | DP, ME, MG, NF, PQ, PS, RP, RS, SR,TM, VY, WH, WM | Alessa | |
| Omnes (OMN) | Center-Left | Primarily focused on expanding welfare programs and improving access to remote areas with public works initiatives. Essentially a party based on the policies of the American New Deal. Very popular in remote places with strong regional identities. Incorporates some ideas of populism and nostalgic imagery. Largely avoidant of social issues. | Northeast, Massodeyas, and Mid-Ardentic | OP, PS | JustSomeMapper (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC) | |
| Farmers & Workers Party (F&W) | Center-Left | Agrarianism and "labor" politics, very strong in the Southeast | Southeast, Mid Atlantic | HY, PA, RP, WA, WH, | Fluffr_Nuttr | |
| Pioneer Party (PIO) | Center-Left | Centrist party with a focus on environmentalism. Split from the Green Party in reaction to it embracing progressive values | The West | AW | IiEarth (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC) | |
| Alliance Party (ALP) | Center-Left | Labor politics, F&W affiliate party | Iroquesia | IR | AcesCalifornia | |
| Democratic Ortholic Party (DOP) | Center* | Fiscal conservatism, moderate libertarianism, socially liberal, civil rights oriented
Used to be a Catholic backed party, now closer to a secular party *Can change greatly depending on the state, especially in the social axis |
States with Catholic (Ortholic) presence, could have been former or more recent | PA, PS, SV, TM, WH | Jr000 (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC) | |
| Effesian Unity Party (EUP) | Center | Big-tent centrism, social and economic liberalism, populism. Created as the Eustacian Unity Party, the EUP attempts to bridge religious and ethnic divides to compete with parties to their right. | Eustacia | EU | Infrarrojo (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2026 (UTC) | |
| Conservative Liberal Progressives (CLP) | Center | Fiscal conservatism and progressivism | Mid Ardentic | NF | Cityguy | |
| Farm and Labor Party (FLP) | Center | Center-libertarianism, fiscal conservatism, and market interventionism. Famous for its trust-busting efforts. Most popular with farmers, loggers, and skilled laborers involved in heavy industry. Most analogous to the short lived Populist Party in the United States.
Merger between Opelikan wing of FFF and an unnamed formerly dominant labor-focused party. Founded 1968. |
Opelika | OP | JustSomeMapper (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC) | |
| Democratic Christic Party (DCP) | Center-Right | Lakes region affiliate branch of the Democratic Ortholic Party (DOP) | Lakes | MS, WI | MiniMapper (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC), CanadaLaVearn | |
| Farmers and Families Faction (FFF) | Center-Right | Libertarianism, decentralized politics, agrarianism, and localism
More bottom-up offshoot of the Federalist Party Founded in the 1940s or 50s |
Passitania (open to any state with significant agriculture) | PS, RS | PoisonDog522 (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC) | |
| Federalist Party (FED) | Center-Right/Right | Moderate fiscal conservatism, Socially center-right, smaller government, federalism, localism (not a Republican Party counterpart). Very strong in the Heartland and Massodeyas region | Nationwide | IR, ME, WM, DP, SR, PA, PQ, OP (with light blue coloration), RS, WY, WH, AW, PS (little influence), TM, SV, NF | Alessa | |
| Citizens for the Great (CFG) | Far-Right | Laissez-faire, war hawk, northeast regionalist, big government and staunchly nativist party known for its colorful characters, rampant internal strife due to its decentralized structure, and links to the armament industry. Founded in 2018 by a group of people who supported the Rural Party's expansion to Opelika but ultimately decided to create a new party based around a distinct northeastern identity. | Northeast | OP | JustSomeMapper (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC) | |
| Heritage & Progressives (H&P) | Far-Right | Right-wing politics, hard fiscal conservatism, anti-immigration, libertarian conservatism, populism
Much more hardline offshoot of the CLP and DOP |
Mid-Ardentic (Anywhere with a large conservative following) | SV | Pole (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC) | |
| Metropolitan Party (MET) | Far-Right | Agrarianism, Nikwaan separatism, populism, right-wing politics
Dominant in the majority of Des Plaines and the Nikwaan region of Apawiland. |
Des Plaines and Apawiland | AW, DP | RhodeIslandWV |