You know, I’m a bit disappointed that you’d make this statement hours after voters made their way into clarence’s thread to ask him about this issue and declare that it was make or break. I mean, I don’t want to start anything, because we get along well… but the timing is interesting, and I don’t think you’d dispute that.

I’m especially concerned because this was a debate that actually helped me come around in support of marriage equality. The arguments that everyone had in favour of giving dogs some sort of special status centred on tradition, history, and society. We were about to set an unfair and discriminatory standard for people from other cultures because “we don’t like it” and because “eating dogs has always been frowned upon.” To me, these arguments are… erm… startlingly familiar, because they’re exactly the arguments that proponents of traditional marriage use in order to justify what I believe is discrimination. I mean, we can argue that the situations are different, but to me, it doesn’t matter, as I always try to conduct my duties with consistency—if I agree with the underlying logic in one situation, I should agree with that logic in another situation. I guess if I was going to ask you a question, I would ask how this new view sits in relation to your views on marriage, but, honestly, I don’t really feel like asking it. Either you’ll insist that the situations are too different to compare, or you’ll argue that it doesn’t matter and that dogs “deserve” special exemptions (maybe for scientific reasons—and I’d remind you that people who are against same-sex marriage also twist science to sell their point of view). I guess I’m just a bit bummed, because, no offense… but it does seem a bit like you’re selling out.

The issue obviously isn’t my biggest concern or anything, and I guess it’s unfair of me to come in here all huffy like this when it’s pretty obvious I’ll be voting for clarence (), but darn… I wish you’d stayed rigid on this one.

Don't try and make it out that I'm the only person who benefits from zombie voters, Marokai. The fact is, they're a part of the game, and everyone needs them. My fear is, we'll have new members join up, sit on their asses for a month or two, complain that they've had nothing to do because they've sat on their asses, and then up and leave because it'll just be that easy. I'll be transparent—I want their votes. So do you. But I think it's also important to realize that people can and will leave for avoidable reasons. Had someone actually engaged those new players and led them around, things might have turned out differently. They could have been active and contributing members. Unfortunately, not everyone has the time to reach out like that, and I think it would be unfortunate to have people deregister "just cuz."

Of course I understand cases like Paul Kemp—and now that he's made himself clear, I'd hope people will not PM him. That said, Atlasia is a commitment. It's not difficult to ignore PMs (I do it all the time ), so if someone wants to leave, they should go through the process. And you know? If they can be convinced to break their vow halfway through this process and vote, then maybe they weren't really good candidates for deregistration in the first place.

Plus, has anyone given thought to the unintended consequences of this measure? How easy will it be for Laborites to shoot messages off to ghost Federalists and encourage them to "deregister" days before an election? If these voters' level of apathy is such that their only involvement in Atlasia is voting, I can't say I think it would be hard to encourage them to completely deregister instead.

You guys are running a great campaign.

Clarence and Matt.

I worry that lackluster candidates would piggyback off of the hard work of ideologically similar candidates (or candidates from the same party) who govern well, campaign actively, and PM voters to ask for their support.

Nix, this happens anyway.

It's interesting though. As any good GOTV operative knows, people who don't want to vote can still be convinced to vote if you work hard enough.

I fear that people who have "soft" involvement with Atlasia may end up just deregistering even if there's a spot for them in the game. Usually you can tell who's totally done with Atlasia, and these "soft participants" don't fit into that category. The people who are actively against participating can make that very clear if they're serious about it. I guess I don't see the need for institutional change.

You will certainly have my support!

I commend Bushie for his faith, but I'd be curious to know what he thinks of this:

If you believe in God, I would assume you believe that almost everything that happens on this planet, one way or another, comes from Him. So even if men wrote the Bible (which, of course, they did), the going argument is that God guided those men so that they might do His work. The thing is, everything is God's work. Now, I'll admit that I'm not the biggest believer in Satan, so maybe that's why I'm a bit confused, but couldn't you say that something as terrible as Hurricane Katrina was God's bidding? If so, it's pretty hard to fathom why God does what he does. I accept that He sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans; I accept that He used men to write the Bible. Still though, I can't profess to know why He did those things or what His motivations were. God creates fallible things all the time—I mean, he created man for crying out loud. Other than your faith, what makes you so sure that the Bible is exempt from all the other rules of God's creations? God had the power to lie in that Bible. Why is it so trustworthy?

I'm also inclined to react against the suggestion, Zanas. I know it's pretty rich coming from me because obviously this system wouldn't have been too conducive to my re-election, but I don't think it's representative of our electorate's heterogeneity. The system shortchanges people who take a strong, ideological stand on either side of the issues, even if these candidates do have an intense base of support (as was my case). So it becomes very easy to tag-team other candidates. Obviously "enough" Atlasians (one fifth) really wanted me to be elected.

I think the problem with your proposed system is that the five votes would be equal. The fact is, people's preferences are not equal.

As a suggestion, I'd be curious to know what it would be like to assign votes based on a points system.  First preferences would be given five points, second preferences would be given four, third would have three, four; two, and five; one. I think it's more representative of voter intent. I wonder what this last election would've looked like...

Or, on the flipside, I think it would be interesting if the five votes in your system could be assigned in "blocks." In other words, if someone wanted, they could give all five votes to Matt. Or three votes to Matt and two votes to Mr. X. You get the idea. This system might be pretty problematic for strategic voting, but it's just a thought.

Aye

Abstain

Nay

Nay

Aye

Aye

Let's not bloat the bureacracy if the president doesn't want to. Seems like a common-sense approach.

Folks, I apologize for not being around here to say anything sooner. It's not because I'm embarrassed or pissed (but rest assured that I am embarrassed and pissed ), but it's because I've had exams to study for. I'll be back soon, and I'll make a comment here once I am.

What activity rules do Dkolroga break?

I'm surprised that I'm so in the minority here. I get that it wasn't terrible to not exist before you were born, but after experiencing life, I'd much rather keep on living.

The funny thing is, I believe in God. I identify as a Christian mostly out of cultural loyalty, but I'm pretty convinced in a higher being... because I feel like there is proof of it around me. What I'm absolutely not convinced of is an afterlife. And that's very tough for me. Eternal nothingness isn't something I look forward to, even though it's completely incomprehensible.

While I can name all them, I tend to be mistaken while locating several Midwest states (Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas) and put one in place of one another. For a long time, I also switched the locations of Arizona and New Mexico in my mind. I have no problem with the other states.

The vast majority of the French Brazilians is bad in geography and couldn't put any of the US states on a map, except perhaps California, Texas, and Florida. I remember, some times ago (in the 1990s), a poll showed that a majority of French Brazilian people failed to correctly name the capital of the United States (New York was the most given answer).

See, back in '08 I would always confuse Mississippi with Alabama. Don't know why, but that was my problem area.

My numbers are showing that the general gist of what Ernest is saying is right. It's entirely possible that some of the zombies from the left didn't meet the activity requirements though, and that could seriously change the way things shake out.

Haha, thanks everyone. I'm pretty confident. I appreciate all of your support.

[AT-LARGE SENATE]

AT-LARGE SENATE

[8] Alfred F. Jones of Puerto Rico
^{Labor Party}

[2] HagridoftheDeep of South Carolina
^{Federalist Party}

[5] Kalwejt of Vermont
^{Liberal Party}

[1] Matt from VT of Massachusetts
^{Federalist Party}

[6] MaxQue of Colorado
^{Labor Party}

[3] Mr. X of Ohio
^Independent

[7] Napoleon of Connecticut
^{Liberal Party}

[4] Poirot of New York
^Independent

[  ] Write-in:______________________________


[  ] None of the above

Thanks for compiling that to-do list. It'll make it easier to know what we should repeal.

That's reasonable enough, I think. Would it be wise to clarify what actually happens in the event that a candidate chooses to run without the blessing of his or her party? Homely and I almost found ourselves in this situation a few weeks ago, but we just straightened it up in other ways because we weren't exactly sure how to deal with it.

I don't think this amendment would change much, but I don't really see a reason to be against it. If it can encourage activity in a meaningful way, let's go for it.

Five also seems like a decent enough number though.