Talk Elections

Welcome all to the ATLAS think tank,

In my work as Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, Senator, and former Speaker of the Mideast Assembly, I have seen the passion and ingenuity of the members of this nation. While we all approach the issues differently and oftentimes have our disagreements, it is undeniable that every active member brings a valid, powerful set of beliefs that have the potential to move the game forward in a meaningful way.

As such, I am hoping to start this thread as a consortium of ideas. There will be no membership, no ranks or titles, and (likely) no consensus. Instead, the purpose of this think tank is to provide a platform for friendly and productive discussion of the major issues. Rather than the partisan bickering usually attached to discussions in legislation or campaign threads, this place will serve as a neutral location where thoughts can be aired, disagreement can be voiced, and solutions can be found (albeit rarely).

For purposes of progress, I hope to serve as a moderator in this think tank, bringing up one or two relevant and current issues a week. The first subject will be posted later this week after I hear from you. Is this something people are interested in? Would anyone be willing to participate, if even occasionally?

Hell yes.  I am totally in.

i would not mind.

     Sounds like it would be quite a good thing for Atlasia.

I'm in.

I will provide input, if I have an opinion.

Sounds good. I'm in.

Sounds like a wise endeavour. I will definately be interested in taking part here.

Alright, looks like a fair amount of support. I will be posting the first topic tomorrow morning.

The first (and most timely) topic for discussion: Election and campaign reform

The topic breadth ranges from making elections more exciting to secret ballot to clean campaign rules. How do you think we could improve the election sim aspect of the game, add competition to races, reduce the messiness, etc?

I don't like the way we currently elected people, it is a good way if we have more then one office to fill, but head to head matches it's kinda useless. Also, I believe making all senate races at-large will be better.

I disagree with making all the senate seats at-large. Regional politics are fun. Besides, it adds many election to follow instead of one big one.


I have a few ideas:

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

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

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

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

What do you all think?

1. I absolutely agree. More organized parties could lead to less chaos come election time.

2. Polls are always good, but we just don't have a big enough population for that sort of thing.

3. That's not a bad idea. It would keep interest levelss high, although it would be grueling for a Senator to run 4 campaigns a year. Also, Senates would hardly be together for long enough to make the gov't part of our sim interesting. There would just be one major bill per session.

4. Absolutely. The GM is a very important position and carries a lot of responsibility. When the GM is inactive, it adversely affects the entire forum.

A lot of the times you have only one person running for senate in a region, and sometimes you don't have anyone at all.

Perhaps reducing the regions to 3 would have the desired affect if we maintain one senator from each.

Have we had a situation where NO ONE was running? If so, then maybe at large seats would be a good idea. However, it would completely remove the concept of regions. Governors don't do much outside the Mideast (no offense folks) and removing the only regional seat with any power just wouldn't make much sense.

I would love to reduce the Regions to three, you know the senate can do that, so why don't you guys?

I would actually support expanding by a few. I also think there should be more assemblymen.

The problem is most Regions aren't active like the Mideast is. So you have pointless office olders that aren't really active and regions that are dead.

If we were to cut down, I feel that we need more members in the Assembly, so the people can be better represented.

Each Assembly is governed by their own regional constitution, including the number of members. Honestly, we don't have enough interested and motivated members in this game to make increasing the number of regions or an increased number of assembly members viable.

Perhaps we could allow for non-executive office holders to serve at both the federal and state levels.

I agree with you, and hope that would happen if we do every reduce the regions to three.

I agree, non-executive office holders should be about to serve at both levels.

Perhaps you should enter your name into consideration for the Assembly once Dan or I gets elected to the Senate. I wouldn't mind making the regions smaller, but the region that will be first to the chopping block would be the Mideast, due to its geographic location.

The thing is, alot of the people who live in the Mideast are very active, so it would do the other two regions some good to have more active members in them.

I was planning on doing  that.
It should be more open for people who WANT to participate. I want to participate and get involved in this game. More seats would give some people a better chance. Raising the number of assembleymen= More votes

If you feel strongly about this, maybe you could write up an amendment to the constitution. I'd be happy to submit it for you.

Maybe I will, once I figure out how to do that. ;)

Unfortunately, once Dan or you win the Senate seat, suddenly the extra seat is vacant.

Some regions have a universal system where all citizens vote. What I tried to do in the Mideast, first during the Constitutional Convention and recently through the referendum amendment, was allow an Assembly to represent the people on a day-to-day basis, while always leaving the option for a universal vote over controversial legislation.

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

Disagree. All senate races should be regional, just as in real life.

Just write up what you want to see changed. Then, send it to me by PM. That's all, really.

This.

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

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

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

Also, why is the Mideast so much more active?

Because the people who live in the Mideast are more active on in Atlasia.

But I'm wondering if it's coincidence, or if there is an underlying reason for this.

I believe it is because we have an Assembly that keeps people active on the regional level, but that is just me.

It wasn't always so.

     I tend to agree. An assembly where people are elected would be a good thing activity-wise, as the people who get the job would tend to be ones who actually had an interest in being regionally active.

     At least, that's how I explain the difference in activity between the Mideast & the Pacific.

Perhaps the issue of population could be addressed through a little advertising.  Really, a game of this scope and breadth that has lasted this long should have far greater than 100 or so participants.  I'm sure there are tons of people out there who would love to get involved, if they knew about it.  Facebook, MySpace, Twitter?  I'm not as internet-savvy as some of you younger guys.  But imagine what life would be like here if we had something like 300 or 400 registered voters.  This could be possible, if some really active measures were taken to get the word out.

Or even just make sure people on the site know what this is and want to get involved. I was a member on Atlas for a few months before I ventured forth into the mysterious Atlasia. I had no idea what it was when I joined.

     It could be an interesting idea. A huge drive to get people involved in Atlasia.

The Mideast used to be the least active region, in fact.  The Midwest had some of the most interesting elections.  The Northeast was the one-party state, and was horribly overcrowded.  The Pacific had an entrenched incumbent.  And the Southeast... was the Southeast :P

It could draw new members, as well as lead some older ones to return. I say it would be best done right after the Convention. Advertise a new Constitution, new game style, etc.

I agree, that is why we need to speed things up in the Convention.

I was just reading over the constitutions of the states and realized that none, save the Mideast's, had an elected legislative body (somebody else may have pointed this out earlier). If every region had an elected legislator, the elections would be far more meaningful, and there would be more activity in the regions.

Why aren't propositions enough?  If it weren't for propositions, you wouldn't've been able to jump right into Midwestern politics and introduce a bill.

I realize that. Here's my reasoning. The Mideast is currently the most active region, they have an elected legislature, therefore, an elected legislature increases activity.

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

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

My quick little thought.
If there were more positions open, I think people would try to be more active to get that position. For examply, I stayed in the shadows for a while, because I didn't think I'd have a prayer at winning an elected office. But, with the upcoming Senate election, one of our Assemblymen will be leaving. Since there will be an opening, I've gotten heavily involded in Atlasia, mainly so I could get that seat and have a stronger voice in the government.

School shootings decrease in the summer.  Ice cream sales increase in the summer.  Therefore school shootings decrease ice cream sales, or perhaps ice cream sales inhibit school shootings.

Touche.

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

The thing is, elected positions make people (hopefully) try to act in ways that ensure reelection. Providing a measure of responsibility or ownership of the region gives people a reason to participate. That's what an elected legislature does.

I'd think it would be just happenstance; right now the most active Atlasians happen to be in the Mideast.  The Midwest had its share of referenda when it was active, and you can see how large the Pacific Legislature has gotten in the Voting Booth subforum.

Alternatively, it could be argued that in the present political system active citizens caused the legislature (or at least perpetuate its existence); citizens from regions that don't have an elected legislature aren't demanding one because they're not active enough to want it.

I'm inclined towards the former explanation, because of the small sample size, but eh.

     My theory is that the Mideast-style legislature leads to the most activity since people need some degree of activity to be involved (true zombie voters would not bother declaring their candidacy in the first place). A Pacific-style legislature or an initiative system allows people to influence the system without taking a really active role or devoting their time to holding an office that's not Senator or Governor or President, so nobody has a real incentive to be active in such a system.

This is my thought as well. And those who are elected feel some responsibility to be active and pass legislation.

Which is why I think the number of assemblymen should be increased. It stinks that some people who might want to get elected would lose an election, even though they really want it. I've gotten active, for example, because after the June elections, there will be an open seat in the Assembly, and I want it.

     While it is disappointing to be on the losing end of that, we need some losers if we're to have exciting elections. Considering the lack of competition that Assembly seats draw, increasing the number of seats would hardly help, especially given the lack of people to staff them all. The Mideast was originally going to have five assemblymen. One of the first, if not the first, amendments they passed was to reduce the number to three when they realized how unfeasible it is to find five citizens to hold Assembly seats.

Plus most of the active Mideast members are in the Senate or hold and office already!

Well, it would increase activity. I think this comes down to whether you want more activity or more exciting elections. I happen to want more activity in Atlasia, therefore, I support expanding the number of Assemblymen. If someone could find a way to do both, I would be happy with that as well.

I believe you extended my logic too far.

The reason legislatures increase activity is because it gives members of the Assembly the need to remain active in order to secure reelection. If the elections are wholly uncompetitive (as a larger Assembly would ensure), there would be no such incentive to do their job. There needs to be a proper balance of competitive, but not restrictive elections to ensure that there are losers, but enough winners to keep activity going.

I understand Bayh '10 that you want to be active and get into the Assembly, but you have to wait until due time. You will get there, trust me. Take this time to read over the laws of the Mideast and Atlasia and start forming bill and acts you would like to see pass in the Assembly.

I think a really great idea has been suggested here. That is advertise in the hopes of getting 300 or 400 registered voters. Even if you fall short we would still have a substantial increase in players.

So far we have seen several individual proposals. I think now we should put the some of the pieces together and see what the picture is

1. GM reform
2. Advertise widely to increase membership
3. Look at creating new offices such as more regional assemblies once the membership is there for it.

We have to go one step at a time of course but I am most comfortable with this approach.

The mideast has enough offices it doesn't need to create any. It could use some more active and vibrant members though to make elections more competative.

In the southeast I am convinced the membership is there for an assembly they are just bored, or have no hope of advancement for lack of opportunity.  I have been debating for a while whether to introduce a intiative creating an assembly in the Southeast, at least it would be more productive then the kind of stuff we usually vote on (Creating financial anarchy or yet another monument to KoTBP).  There were competative elections in the Southeast last year and I am confident that can happen again. I am still hopefull for an opponent, though I am not nieve enough to be sure it will occur.

I am opposed to decreasing the number of regions. I think if that were to happen it would only make our problem worse. How do you create fewer regions? The regions themselves would have to vote on it and the two who are most likely to be chopped up would vote against it. So the most likely attempt to reduce the regions would the simply not create them all in the new consitution. I haven't had time to check up on the convention these last two days so I don't know whats come of that. I feel that this would be a grave mistake.

This is how I'm recruiting more members...
I've been on several sites where one party dominated the forum, and the mods were very biased. Both Democrats and Republicans have been angered by it. I'm trying to get them to join Atlas, since we have simply amazing mods that are fair and reasonable. I've gotten 2 people to sign up today, and I'm looking for more in the upcoming days.

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

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

Seeing as discussion has slowed down I will roll out the next topic. Before each new topic, I will provide a recap of what was discussed on the previous issue.

Election and campaign reform
While we drifted pretty far off topic, we came up with a number of interesting discussions, as highlighted below:

• Regions = It was proposed that we change the number of regions. Consensus seemed to indicate we reduce or maintain the number of regions, but ensure that each region has a legislature to allow for members to further participate and be active.
• Activity = The main reason increasing the number of regions or seats in the legislatures was not supported was the lack of activity in Atlasia. To help with this, it was widely supported that we increase membership and activity by: maintaining an active GM; advertise, advertise, advertise; allow non-executive officeholders to hold dual offices; open more regional legislatures.

The next topic is Dual office holding and term limits.

This is a slightly more specific discussion than our last and so will probably be a shorter discussion. However, something that has not often been discussed, but is occasionally mentioned, is the removal of term limits or the allowance of dual office holding, each with or without caveats. What would be the best solution for each and why?

I guess I will start.

Term limits: This is difficult. On one hand, eliminating the term limits might help retain more of the older more active members, as they would only lose office upon retirement of the loss of an election. On the other hand, what if an extremely popular, almost unbeatable person becomes president without term limits? This would essentially ruin the best part of the game. I'll let more experienced Atlasians expand on this topic.

Dual Office Holding: I don't think this is a good idea personally. We would end up with a handful of elites monopolizing all offices. Newbies like myself and Bayh'10 would have to challenge incumbents to gain office (though I am doing it anyway). While it is fun to be the underdog, it is good for newbies to feel like they have a shot at a office right away (whether real or perceived).

I think Vepres is right on this. The only thing I would add is that a case may be made to increase Term limits as well but I certainly would not be one to support that, it may lead to new members but the risk is not being able to fill offices which we ran into in the Mideast(Before the eliminate the Lt. Gov.) and in Feburary when Smid ran for the Senate and it was an open question as to whether someone would run for Gov. so he wouldn't have too. I think that is the worst situation possible.

Bump.

How about more discussion, these are very interesting ideas.

I agree that term limits is a tough one. While the limits do cycle out experienced members, they also allows for the occasional shake-up of a good chunk of the government, making for exciting elections and allowing up-and-comers to advance through the ranks. I agree we do need term limits, but only on certain positions (executive positions) and not too restrictive.

To a certain degree I agree with your dual office holding assessment and if we continue to gain new and excited members in the game it won't be necessary. My original proposal to allow this was rooted in a period a few months ago when it appeared incredibly difficult to replace retiring members with fresh faces. Assuming the recruitment initiatives continue to work, this won't be necessary. We just have to hope that the new users continue to participate and don't end up being flashes in the pan.

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

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

Agreed.

     The problem with large drives to recruit newbies is that many of them either never get involved or fade away in a couple of months. When I've recruited people I have specifically asked them to drop by every couple days or so. It's been pretty successful in large part.

You seem to recruit many newbies, including me ;D, so how many of these newbies become active and remain active?

It cannot be truly measured yet. A sudden influx can easily disappear when people become dissatisfied or bored. The goal is to find ways to keep new members engaged. To bring us back to the topic, how can we best do that with the matters of dual office holding and term limits.

Well many in fact.
Myself, you, Dan, Persepolis, tmforu94 and others I am sure I'm forgetting.

PiT didn't recruit me, DTWL did. IIRC

I have more thoughts on the term limits topic.

First, I think we need to have at least two people in every senate race, no matter how strong or weak one candidate is. It is ultimately up to the parties to encourage members to run for office. If they don't do this, we may have no choice but put legislative term limits in place to catalyze activity. I really don't want that to happen, but we have to do something to keep legislative races competitive without removing regional representation.

Thats a surprise DWTL usually left that sort of thing to PiT as he was the Party Whip.

I agree I am practically to the point of begging PS to find someone to run against me. I realise its a tall order in the South, we have pretty well locked down the area so I encourage, and thank god DWTL isn't here to read this, the DA to launch a massive recruiting effort to make the South competative.

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

I would agree, in theory, but some races are not always viable. It is hard enough to maintain relatively safe seats, not to mention attempting to avoid appearing far too dominant. It is as futile to oppose the RPP in the SE as it is to challenge the JCP in the Pacific. You also have to consider the size of the DA.

My bigger surprise is that neither the JCP nor RPP have attempted to encroach on the territory of the other. Both parties have the membership resources to challenge the regional seats.

Perhaps setting term limits for executive positions, such as Governors, would be smarter. Oftentimes senior members relegate themselves to a cushy governorship position that they maintain for as long as they continue to run. These members tend to be very popular, but lack the motivation to run for a higher office. Perhaps forcing governors to run for legislative offices, like the Senate, would allow regional governments to switch up more often, allowing assembly members to move up, new recruits to run for assembly, etc.

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

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

     That actually sounds like an idea. There's still time until the election, so maybe after this week's special election I'll go ahead & do it.

This has nothing to do with the topic, but I believe if the major parties would have primaries to elected their President/VP candidate it would make the parties stronger.

Possibly. But it could also divide the party. If it is extremely close, the losing candidate could decide to run in the general, splitting the party.

The voting system prevents splitting I believe.

     The use of preference voting actually does give one incentive to do so as they would not materially damage their party's odds of winning. However, they would hurt their party in the long run by reducing the level of partisan solidarity between party members.

It is possibly, but it most  likely will never happen.

It would also just take more effort than many parties are willing to expend, not to mention smaller parties would have a harder time.

As this was a shorter topic, I will end it with the following summary:

Term limits and Dual office holding

• Term Limits = Possibly good for executive positions to shake up the regions and allow for advancement at all levels. Lack of term limits allows older members to stay put in comfortable positions, maintaining popularity but holding positions from newer members.
• Dual Office Holding = General consensus opposed this option as an obstacle to competition and open races.

The next topic is GM reform.

This is to say, what modifications would you like to see to the GM position? How can we ensure an active GM? What should the major responsibilities of the GM be and how can those be achieved on a regular basis?

     The GM should be required a minimum level of activity. That aside, it would be nice if the GM worked with the President to implement the President's agenda, by emphasizing issues that tie into bills that the President would like to pass.

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

I think we should have some sort of artificial GM-determined markets that change daily. An Atlasian Stock Exchange, Oil, Gold and the Atlasian Dollar value change. A daily report, just a few lines, could really make for interesting economic action in the Senate.

That's not a bad idea. Considering all the economic issues in real life, I'm sure the senators are eager to know the situation in Atlasia.

By the way, could GM activity requirements be legislated, or do they have to be constitutional?

Depends on the result of the current court case. ;) I would argue it can be legislated (as I did before the Supreme Court) and plan to introduce legislation if the ruling is in my favor.

I suggested the same thing. You would also need to know Unemployment, and Inflation at the very least. I would also include the Trade Balance and finally the GM could report the decisions of the Federal Reserve(Does Atlasia have one?). If not we could create it and then just have the GM fabricate its actions and decisions.

Actually Marokai said, when I asked him about it, that the Senate can regulate the actions of the GM but not legilsate the removal of the current GM. Since the court case is based on the President's power to appoint and fire people and checks and balances. Thus what you mentioned and what I asked Marokai about  would not violate what the GM Removal act violates n the constitution is thus is constitutional.

In addition, and I know this may be difficult, shouldn't the GM report on the budget situation within the government so senators have to find money to pay for their programs.

What about taxes? The GM could report on tax revenue, say, biannually, where every citizen represents x amount of people. The GM would decide the average income for that half year as well, so the senate can act on declining or rising income.

He could calculate government expenditures and revenue, but estimating revenue is a bit difficult. We could start by saying the budget is balanced and go from there...

I still think we should elect the position of GM, honestly.

I agree with Marokai.

I actually like it as something Atlasians should consider when they elect their other officials: will this person not only be active, but also fight for activity in other positions.

Just for the sake of discussion this is what I said awhile ago in the ConCon about this:

The next topic, and a timely one, is Rules for new members.

With the influx of new members into Atlasia and the surge of "flash in the pan" campaigns, do we need new rules for new members? Should we raise the restrictions on office holding? Do new members have ideas to better orient them to the game?

     An idea I've had was to have a noticeboard of upcoming elections. That way when a new member joins they can see what offices there are to run for. If they run a campaign for some office, then they help contribute to a more active Atlasia & hopefully will get to see the fun that can be had in being an active participant.

That is a fabulous idea and perhaps a great responsibility to give to the SoFA. That would keep everyone more organized, allow the SoFA to keep track of his own work, etc.

     I was thinking of adding it to the Introduction to Atlasia thread. That way when they are referred there, that information is there alongside everything else they ought to know when getting started in Atlasia.

I would be happy to add that, if I knew when the elections were myself :P

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Office_Holders (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Office_Holders)

     You can figure it out based on when the terms end. :P Mideast Assembly is voted on every two months, every other time coinciding with the Gubernatorial election.

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

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

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

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

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

     Don't talk about war with Canada or diplomatic relations with "Franco" & your reputation will probably fare pretty well.

     You do raise a good point in that it is dangerous to run when you are unfamiliar with Atlasian politics, but people here are understanding. If it is an understandable mistake then it won't be that big of an issue six months down the line.

Plus I can see making the Presidency and Senate off limits untill a newbie has voted in one national election. But I disagree on the Vice Presidency. Usually when a Vice Presidential candidate is picked that wins it is part of a political deal like Bgwah/Meeker and I doubt newbies who haven't even voted yet would be picked in such an arrangement. On tickets that are just to rally the troops and create activity like DWTL/NC Yankee last Feb I was picked to get my name out there, increase my knowledge of how the game works, and of course DWTL though I could help him win some votes. If such a proposal were to include a ban on running for V.P. that would have prevented me from running in Feb in which case I wouldn't likely be a Senate candidate now. 

A debate I have heard thrown around in more subtle ways...

The next topic is Campaigning: Content/Activity vs. Seniority/Mobilization.

Essentially, some people prefer campaigns full of content, while others tout a big name and the ability to bring in a lot of old-time voters. So what do you prefer and why?

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

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

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

I would choose content/Activity for the simple fact that this is an elections game and the only way to keep people interested in the game it is necessary that the elections be fun and lively.

I would say you had it spot on Vepres. To bring it into more recent events, do you prefer the style of someone like Marokai, who is focused on detailing an agenda and mentioning past accomplishments, or Keystone Phil, who prefers to avoid directly addressing issues while mobilizing the old guard and voters.