A proposal: Electoral Handicapping (for more competitive elections)

[tpfkaw]

I suppose this would have to be a constitutional amendment, although the SoFE could also just arbitrarily implement it, saying it's the work of "invisible Atlasians."

Here's the proposal:

In all Atlasia-wide and region-wide elections that elect a single candidate (so not Class B Senate or State House elections), each party gets one additional vote for its endorsed candidate (national or regional party chairs can decide the rest of the ranking) for each election in a row that its endorsed candidate has contested and lost.  If the party's candidate wins, the counter resets to zero.

This would ensure that:

1. Every election is contested by every party (which would improve activity significantly).

2. Every election is potentially competitive.  No one-party fiefdoms, which will both make elections more fun and more enjoyable.  Having Soviet-style elections might be fun the first time, but it's really like playing Pong where the other side doesn't have a paddle. What's the point?

3. De facto term limits, which means more players get to take turns being officeholders, which is the whole fun of the thing.

Here would be the current handicaps for federal elections:

President:

POP: 3
RPP: 1

Mideast Senate:

RPP: 2

Midwest Senate:

POP: 2
Chartist: 2

Northeast Senate:

POP: 1

Pacific Senate:

none

Southeast Senate:

POP: 1





Thoughts?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Thoughts?

Repulsive.

You people have the nerve to criticize others on issues of democracy?

[tpfkaw]

Oh, yes, it would also eliminate sockpuppeting as a serious issue.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh, yes, it would also eliminate sockpuppeting as a serious issue.

I fail to see how it even touches that issue.

[Yelnoc]

Vive la démocratie!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vive la démocratie directe!

Not for much longer, apparently.

[tpfkaw]

It's a very minor change.  It wouldn't have changed a single result had it been implemented in the most recent elections.

[Sewer]

You wish to kill one man, one vote????????

[Rowan]

Stupid.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Expect the Anti-Christ Party to oppose this, EDIT: It's already started!

There are some issues with this idea, though. It doesn't really make elections competitive, and here's why. Take the Southeast Senate, for example.

NCYankee, of course, won 16-3. It would take years for SPC to get enough virtual votes to beat NCYankee. What's more, just 1 term and all of that's gone because NCYankee easily comes back. So, the minority party has to wait too long for it to have any impact, and it doesn't really change much because that way the RPP will hold the seat 12 times in a row as opposed to just holding it forever.

Also, what do you do if the party is eliminated? Take the presidency, for example. The RPP ticket would get 1 extra vote this way. It would also still be eliminated in Round 1. Since no second preference was indicated (for obvious reasons), I assume it simply turns into an exhausted vote?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm having flashbacks of how Teddy once tried to argue that getting a majority of votes in an election shouldn't mean you win.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

People, you lost the election fairly and squarely. We lost the election before also in a Democratic way. Get over it.

[tpfkaw]

Expect the Anti-Christ Party to oppose this, EDIT: It's already started!

They sure do awfully emotional over a game.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, there will still be "safe" seats, but "semi-safe" seats should be thrown into more competitive territory - eventually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The RPP-endorsed ticket was Andrew/Duke.  Although as I pointed out, they would still have lost.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So you propose to set the elections and eliminate the largest group of Atlasians from the game?

Yes, very freedom idea

Nice to show you true colors.

[tpfkaw]

I'm somewhat reminded of a 4-year-old insisting that he gets to be Batman and you get to be the Joker, and so that means that they get to punch you in the face until you go to jail.  However, only he can be Batman, and you always have to be the Joker.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Expect the Anti-Christ Party to oppose this, EDIT: It's already started!

They sure do awfully emotional over a game.

People tend not to like it when you advocate for a system of cheating in a game.

I wouldn't like it if someone made up a Monopoly rule that decided "the person with the least amount of Houses and Hotels will collect an extra $100 each time he or she passes go until the player has rivaled or surpassed the other players in buildings."

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm somewhat reminded of a 4-year-old insisting that he gets to be Batman and you get to be the Joker, and so that means that they get to punch you in the face until you go to jail.  However, only he can be Batman, and you always have to be the Joker.

Are you seriously implying that fair elections and 'one man = one vote' is a JCP conspiracy to keep power?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I love this hipocrisy. When you were winning and controlling the entire region, that was a "democracy". When someone else is winning, that's "oh no, game is uncompetive, we must set the elections".

[tpfkaw]

Expect the Anti-Christ Party to oppose this, EDIT: It's already started!

They sure do awfully emotional over a game.

People tend not to like it when you advocate for a system of cheating in a game.

I wouldn't like it if someone made up a Monopoly rule that decided "the person with the least amount of Houses and Hotels will collect an extra $100 each time he or she passes go until the player has rivaled or surpassed the other players in buildings."

Do you like the last hour or so of Monopoly, if you aren't the player who has the hotels on everything?  That's why nobody likes Monopoly.

[tpfkaw]

I love this hipocrisy. When you were winning and controlling the entire region, that was a "democracy". When someone else is winning, that's "oh no, game is uncompetive, we must set the elections".

When was that?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Expect the Anti-Christ Party to oppose this, EDIT: It's already started!

They sure do awfully emotional over a game.

People tend not to like it when you advocate for a system of cheating in a game.

I wouldn't like it if someone made up a Monopoly rule that decided "the person with the least amount of Houses and Hotels will collect an extra $100 each time he or she passes go until the player has rivaled or surpassed the other players in buildings."

Do you like the last hour or so of Monopoly, if you aren't the player who has the hotels on everything?  That's why nobody likes Monopoly.

The only people who get bothered by that are toddlers and sore losers. Conveniently, the target audience for this proposal. If you can't stand losing a fair game, you do not play.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I love this hipocrisy. When you were winning and controlling the entire region, that was a "democracy". When someone else is winning, that's "oh no, game is uncompetive, we must set the elections".

When was that?

Well, nobody can deny that at some point Populares were a domination force in Northeast.

I know you are very bitter after the upset defeat there, as bitter that you are now rejecting the fundamentals of the game: free elections, one man one vote.

[Sewer]

You wish to kill one man, one vote??

[tpfkaw]

This is a fair game.  The same rules would apply to anyone.  This would only just make it more like Monopoly, by adding a semi-random element to it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I thought you didn't like Monopoly?