A proposal: Electoral Handicapping (for more competitive elections)

[tpfkaw]

One more question:

Are you guys in favor of the so-called "fairness doctrine?"

If you are, you are complete hypocrites.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

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.

Well, considering Rowan & Fezzy became Governor and Lieutenant Governor respectively, and Purple State carried the region in June...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

After every electoral loss, it is not uncommon for their to be calls from the loser to change the process. Abolish the electoral college in 2000 and restricting voting from the dumbs in 2008. I oppose this idea.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

When has democracy had anything to do with fairness?

[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.

Well, considering Rowan & Fezzy became Governor and Lieutenant Governor respectively, and Purple State carried the region in June...

I mean rather the time when Morgan was Governor, Libertas Lt. Governor, Winston Senator and you dominated legislature.

Yes, we questioned legitimacy of some voters, that later turned out to be a sock, but tell me, Dallas, did anyone was proposing such an awful stuff like Wormy?

So, Dallas, what do you think about this crap? I hope a sane guy like you won't like directed elections and destroying the real voting.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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.

Well, that's a problem in itself. Who gets the RPP points, the RPP-endorsed ticket or the ticket with the RPP presidential candidate? What if (if it ever happens) there are multiple candidates from the same party (which you could say happened in this very election)?

[Marokai Backbeat]

After every electoral loss, it is not uncommon for their to be calls from the loser to change the process. Abolish the electoral college in 2000 and restricting voting from the dumbs in 2008. I oppose this idea.

I'm happy to say that, even though we were incredibly disappointed when Afleitch won in February, we didn't whine and try to change the system. We came back, redoubled our efforts, campaigned fiercely, and won.

Losing can better you, gentlemen. If you let it.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

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.

Well, considering Rowan & Fezzy became Governor and Lieutenant Governor respectively, and Purple State carried the region in June...

I mean rather the time when Morgan was Governor, Libertas Lt. Governor, Winston Senator and you dominated legislature.

Yes, we questioned legitimacy of some voters, that later turned out to be a sock, but tell me, Dallas, did anyone was proposing such an awful stuff like Wormy?

So, Dallas, what do you think about this crap? I hope a sane guy like you won't like directed elections and destroying the real voting.

Opposed - pretty much any voting process that gives one a headache, I'm against.

I'm just a private citizen though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I miss those days.

[Sewer]

One more question:

Are you guys in favor of the so-called "fairness doctrine?"

If you are, you are complete hypocrites.

I don't favor it.

[tpfkaw]

Look, this system would change the results of maybe 1 out of 10 presidential elections and 1 out of 20 senate/regional elections.  It wouldn't even affect half the senate.  It's a way to prevent every election from being like Mississippi 1900.  Also, it's a reasonable way of simulating that there are other citizens of Atlasia besides ourselves (we should be only hundreds out of millions!), and that certain years might be "wave" elections, rather than the same as every other year, slightly depending on candidate quality.

One more question:

Are you guys in favor of the so-called "fairness doctrine?"

If you are, you are complete hypocrites.

I don't favor it.

There you go (from earlier).

[Sewer]

One more question:

Are you guys in favor of the so-called "fairness doctrine?"

If you are, you are complete hypocrites.

I don't favor it.

There you go (from earlier).

[Rowan]

Why are we even entertaining such an un-democratic idea?

[tpfkaw]

It's not something I would favor in real life, but it's a game.  I want to make the game more "gamey," by allowing everyone a chance to win - at least once.  This will also benefit the "reformist left" and the left in general should the right ever form a majority again.  If it's a game like "Nim," where the winner is already known in advance, it's not worth playing.  You know those multiplayer video games where people shoot at each other and whatever?  Imagine the only game mode was one where one player would be chosen at random to face off against 20 players on the other team.  In one sense, that's "fair," but in another, it's not really "fair."  It's certainly not fun.

One more question:

Are you guys in favor of the so-called "fairness doctrine?"

If you are, you are complete hypocrites.

I don't favor it.

There you go (from earlier).

"Name one issue on which you disagree with Democrats."

[Yelnoc]

It's not something I would favor in real life, but it's a game.  I want to make the game more "gamey," by allowing everyone a chance to win - at least once.  This will also benefit the "reformist left" and the left in general should the right ever form a majority again.  If it's a game like "Nim," where the winner is already known in advance, it's not worth playing.  You know those multiplayer video games where people shoot at each other and whatever?  Imagine the only game mode was one where one player would be chosen at random to face off against 20 players on the other team.  In one sense, that's "fair," but in another, it's not really "fair."  It's certainly not fun.

Call me ignorant but I don't see a direct connection between that metaphor and democracy.

[tpfkaw]

It's not something I would favor in real life, but it's a game.  I want to make the game more "gamey," by allowing everyone a chance to win - at least once.  This will also benefit the "reformist left" and the left in general should the right ever form a majority again.  If it's a game like "Nim," where the winner is already known in advance, it's not worth playing.  You know those multiplayer video games where people shoot at each other and whatever?  Imagine the only game mode was one where one player would be chosen at random to face off against 20 players on the other team.  In one sense, that's "fair," but in another, it's not really "fair."  It's certainly not fun.

Call me ignorant but I don't see a direct connection between that metaphor and democracy.

The "tyranny of the majority," which is especially prevalent here, since every election is like Singapore.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I don't see "being more democratic" as the highest good the voting system can achieve, it seems to me that this doesn't really tackle the problem in a desirable manner (parties should recruit across all regions & contest all races as a matter of course), & is also just extremely counter-intuitive.

[tpfkaw]

While I don't see "being more democratic" as the highest good the voting system can achieve, it seems to me that this doesn't really tackle the problem in a desirable manner (parties should recruit across all regions & contest all races as a matter of course), & is also just extremely counter-intuitive.

Well, what do you propose?  If nominating even a left-of-center unity ticket and having popular senators in our "strongholds" doesn't cut it, then what does?

(You could have IDS independence, which I would strongly support . . .)

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

While I don't see "being more democratic" as the highest good the voting system can achieve, it seems to me that this doesn't really tackle the problem in a desirable manner (parties should recruit across all regions & contest all races as a matter of course), & is also just extremely counter-intuitive.

Well, what do you propose?  If nominating even a left-of-center unity ticket and having popular senators in our "strongholds" doesn't cut it, then what does?

(You could have IDS independence, which I would strongly support . . .)

Atlasia's been down that road.

[tpfkaw]

While I don't see "being more democratic" as the highest good the voting system can achieve, it seems to me that this doesn't really tackle the problem in a desirable manner (parties should recruit across all regions & contest all races as a matter of course), & is also just extremely counter-intuitive.

Well, what do you propose?  If nominating even a left-of-center unity ticket and having popular senators in our "strongholds" doesn't cut it, then what does?

(You could have IDS independence, which I would strongly support . . .)

Atlasia's been down that road.

Go down it again!

[Associate Justice PiT]

While I don't see "being more democratic" as the highest good the voting system can achieve, it seems to me that this doesn't really tackle the problem in a desirable manner (parties should recruit across all regions & contest all races as a matter of course), & is also just extremely counter-intuitive.

Well, what do you propose?  If nominating even a left-of-center unity ticket and having popular senators in our "strongholds" doesn't cut it, then what does?

(You could have IDS independence, which I would strongly support . . .)

     Get forum regulars involved in Atlasia & develop strong relationships with swing voters?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yup, treason is certainly the way to get people on your side. I say go with that.

(...Do you people listen to yourselves?)

[tpfkaw]

While I don't see "being more democratic" as the highest good the voting system can achieve, it seems to me that this doesn't really tackle the problem in a desirable manner (parties should recruit across all regions & contest all races as a matter of course), & is also just extremely counter-intuitive.

Well, what do you propose?  If nominating even a left-of-center unity ticket and having popular senators in our "strongholds" doesn't cut it, then what does?

(You could have IDS independence, which I would strongly support . . .)

     Get forum regulars involved in Atlasia & develop strong relationships with swing voters?

There are no swing voters at all, and nearly every right-wing forum regular is either already involved in Atlasia or quit out of frustration.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I agree there is a problem, but I don't really see this system as workable.

I think the most important thing is to institute some reform of voting eligibility policy. Voters and their votes are thrown out as "zombies" because they didn't meet some arbitrary post requirement, yet we have lots of people voting who clearly aren't at all involved in Atlasia. It's a double standard designed to benefit the JCP, since they have lots of old red avatars who are active on the rest of the forum, but don't give two sh**ts about Atlasia.

[tpfkaw]

I agree there is a problem, but I don't really see this system as workable.

I think the most important thing is to institute some reform of voting eligibility policy. Voters and their votes are thrown out as "zombies" because they didn't meet some arbitrary post requirement, yet we have lots of people voting who clearly aren't at all involved in Atlasia. It's a double standard designed to benefit the JCP, since they have lots of old red avatars who are active on the rest of the forum, but don't give two sh**ts about Atlasia.

Hence why the polls indicated an AndrewCT landslide, but he lost narrowly.

Perhaps a requirement that all voters make at least one post per week, for at least 3 weeks before an election, in a stickied thread here to be eligible? Just to show some cursory interest.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I agree there is a problem, but I don't really see this system as workable.

I think the most important thing is to institute some reform of voting eligibility policy. Voters and their votes are thrown out as "zombies" because they didn't meet some arbitrary post requirement, yet we have lots of people voting who clearly aren't at all involved in Atlasia. It's a double standard designed to benefit the JCP, since they have lots of old red avatars who are active on the rest of the forum, but don't give two sh**ts about Atlasia.

Hence why the polls indicated an AndrewCT landslide, but he lost narrowly.

Perhaps a requirement that all voters make at least one post per week, for at least 3 weeks before an election, in a stickied thread here to be eligible? Just to show some cursory interest.

That's a bit too reminiscent of the HAEV.