NE3: Because You've Earned It Act (At Final Vote)

[SWE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Adam Griffin

Debate on this bill will last for 72 hours, or until 4:53 PM on Friday, October 24, unless otherwise modified or extended. The sponsor is encouraged to speak on behalf of this proposed legislation.

[Adam Griffin]

I think the intent of the legislation is fairly straightforward, though I expect there to be some contention. In many states IRL, ballot prominence is given to the majority party in some way, shape or form (for instance, In Georgia the party of the last Governor to hold office is at the top of the ballot). While due to the nature of and the sample size within the game I do not expect any tangible advantage being bestowed to a party from this bill, I'm always on the lookout for tiny perks that encourage party organization and unit cohesion. This is one of them; bragging rights for the largest party or group, if you will. 

[free my dawg]

You thought you could pull a fast one on us, didn't you, Griffin?

I'm not going to say much, but I just think it's funny how this was proposed the day that Labor would get "preferred placement" under this law over the independents. And the specific date preferred placement is pinned to is the very day where they took their lead. And that this bill is a bill proposed by the head of the party that would get "preferred placement" at the top of the ballot. And there are two Labor candidates in close races, according to the polls, in the Northeast.

This isn't "election reform". This is a blatant attempt by the Labor Party at tinkering with an election and securing their own candidates names as first on the ballot this October. I encourage Governor Talleyrand to denounce this attempt at subverting democracy and call on the rest of my fellow representatives to vote against this bill as well.

[rpryor03]

Hear, Hear!

[Adam Griffin]

You thought you could pull a fast one on us, didn't you, Griffin?

I'm not going to say much, but I just think it's funny how this was proposed the day that Labor would get "preferred placement" under this law over the independents. And the specific date preferred placement is pinned to is the very day where they took their lead. And that this bill is a bill proposed by the head of the party that would get "preferred placement" at the top of the ballot. And there are two Labor candidates in close races, according to the polls, in the Northeast.

This isn't "election reform". This is a blatant attempt by the Labor Party at tinkering with an election and securing their own candidates names as first on the ballot this October. I encourage Governor Talleyrand to denounce this attempt at subverting democracy and call on the rest of my fellow representatives to vote against this bill as well.

You are such a hack, you know that? Not even a good one at that, and no, you didn't say much at all.

First of all, I proposed this because it's the first day I've been in the Assembly, after being called to serve upon one of your own - once again - not being able to fulfill his duties as an elected official. I'm sure the Governor can tell you that I had no prior notice of being asked to fill this position, and if I had wanted such legislation passed/it were planned, it'd have been introduced when Labor had a majority. Duh. I thought instead that it'd be a fun piece of legislation that I spontaneously crafted.

Secondly, from November 2013 through April 2014, the independent caucus held a plurality for all but two weeks of that. From May through September, Labor held the lead and ever since (until today, which I genuinely didn't even notice we were about to take the lead when I drafted this), independents have held the plurality. So let's see:

Independents: 7 months
Labor: 5 months

If you go back to the prior Census thread, you'll see periods in which Federalists and TPP also held a plurality registration advantage in the region.

Thirdly, what does this even mean?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ooooh, big conspiracy! Who are you, Jim Carrey? Said date was selected because a) it was the day it was introduced and b) said date makes the most sense to pick given the generally loose schedule of the Census being updated and the timing of Northeast elections. It ensures that the most recent Census Count should never be more than a week old when the election begins.

Last but not least, I'd like for you to explain in full what sort of advantage this would provide to one group or another. This isn't real-life and we're not dealing with hundreds of thousands or millions of voters. There are three groups of voters in Atlasia:

1) Those who are zombies and vote for who they're told
2) Those who are active and vote for who they're told
3) Those who are active and vote for their friends

I don't see any instance in which such a change makes an iota of difference, other than bragging rights of course, which I clearly outlined as a motivation. If you have such a lack of confidence in your own party to be a viable, competitive force in the region and earn what is nothing more substantial than a title, then just say so. In fact, I encourage Representative Sawx to denounce his claims that his own party will always be in a minority status and call on the rest of his party members to counter this absurd line of defeatism. Your short-sightedness of the game's dynamics and blatant spite toward me are both disappointing.

[SWE]

I don't feel strongly either way, but I can't see how the ballot order would affect the outcome of the election in any way. Nobody in Atlasia is voting based on whose name is listed first.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't feel strongly either way, but I can't see how the ballot order would affect the outcome of the election in any way. Nobody in Atlasia is voting based on whose name is listed first.

Thank you! And yes, this shouldn't be something that stirs strong emotion because it's a superficial element that only adds a smidgen more incentive for competitive gameplay between factions.

[Talleyrand]

The attacks on this are bizarre and insulting to Northeast voters because they assume that order on a ballot in this game would affect the election's outcome, which is blatantly a joke... I don't think it's anything but scraping at the bottom of the barrel to try to score political points.

That said, to stop the faux outrage, why don't we set an implementation date for this after the October election? This obviously is nothing more than a symbolic move, but I hope it'd put an end to the B.S. complaints about this bill.

[Poirot]

That said, to stop the faux outrage, why don't we set an implementation date for this after the October election? This obviously is nothing more than a symbolic move, but I hope it'd put an end to the B.S. complaints about this bill.

A date could make it more clear that it would not be in effect for the October 2014 election but I don't think it is realistic that it could be adopted before the vote starts. Doesn't look possible to do some more debate time, voting time and signature by governor with two days left before the next election.

[Mechaman]

The attacks on this are bizarre and insulting to Northeast voters because they assume that order on a ballot in this game would affect the election's outcome, which is blatantly a joke... I don't think it's anything but scraping at the bottom of the barrel to try to score political points.

That said, to stop the faux outrage, why don't we set an implementation date for this after the October election? This obviously is nothing more than a symbolic move, but I hope it'd put an end to the B.S. complaints about this bill.

With all of that said, why even push for this bill?  If the order really doesn't matter?

[free my dawg]

You are such a hack, you know that? Not even a good one at that, and no, you didn't say much at all.

First of all, I proposed this because it's the first day I've been in the Assembly, after being called to serve upon one of your own - once again - not being able to fulfill his duties as an elected official. I'm sure the Governor can tell you that I had no prior notice of being asked to fill this position, and if I had wanted such legislation passed/it were planned, it'd have been introduced when Labor had a majority. Duh. I thought instead that it'd be a fun piece of legislation that I spontaneously crafted.

A fun piece of legislation that would, as drafted, put your party at the top of the ballot this October. I apparently thought you would be here to serve the people of the Northeast, not pull the wool over their eyes as you try to steal the election for your party.

Secondly, from November 2013 through April 2014, the independent caucus held a plurality for all but two weeks of that. From May through September, Labor held the lead and ever since (until today, which I genuinely didn't even notice we were about to take the lead when I drafted this), independents have held the plurality. So let's see:

Independents: 7 months
Labor: 5 months

If you go back to the prior Census thread, you'll see periods in which Federalists and TPP also held a plurality registration advantage in the region.

Thirdly, what does this even mean?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ooooh, big conspiracy! Who are you, Jim Carrey? Said date was selected because a) it was the day it was introduced and b) said date makes the most sense to pick given the generally loose schedule of the Census being updated and the timing of Northeast elections. It ensures that the most recent Census Count should never be more than a week old when the election begins.

Census Atlasia
October 13, 2014

Region	Fed	Labor	TPP	DR	other	ind	Total
Northeast	4	10	8	3	2	11	38

Census Atlasia
October 20, 2014

Region	Fed	Labor	TPP	DR	other	ind	Total
Northeast	5	11	8	3	3	10	40

All that needs to be said. Keep on living that #KaSickLife you live.

Last but not least, I'd like for you to explain in full what sort of advantage this would provide to one group or another. This isn't real-life and we're not dealing with hundreds of thousands or millions of voters. There are three groups of voters in Atlasia:

1) Those who are zombies and vote for who they're told
2) Those who are active and vote for who they're told
3) Those who are active and vote for their friends

I don't see any instance in which such a change makes an iota of difference, other than bragging rights of course, which I clearly outlined as a motivation. If you have such a lack of confidence in your own party to be a viable, competitive force in the region and earn what is nothing more substantial than a title, then just say so. In fact, I encourage Representative Sawx to denounce his claims that his own party will always be in a minority status and call on the rest of his party members to counter this absurd line of defeatism. Your short-sightedness of the game's dynamics and blatant spite toward me are both disappointing.

If this change is really as superficial and minuscule as you say, then why are you and the rest of your surrogates so angry over a superficial change? Why is Labor pushing this bill so hard if it's so small for the rest of the public? For a matter, why are you descending into impotent rage when I mentioned that there was a clear conflict of interest in such a minuscule bill?

Jesus Christ, you people make Snowstalker look like Frank Underwood.

[free my dawg]

tl;dr:

[Adam Griffin]

You are such a hack, you know that? Not even a good one at that, and no, you didn't say much at all.

First of all, I proposed this because it's the first day I've been in the Assembly, after being called to serve upon one of your own - once again - not being able to fulfill his duties as an elected official. I'm sure the Governor can tell you that I had no prior notice of being asked to fill this position, and if I had wanted such legislation passed/it were planned, it'd have been introduced when Labor had a majority. Duh. I thought instead that it'd be a fun piece of legislation that I spontaneously crafted.

A fun piece of legislation that would, as drafted, put your party at the top of the ballot this October. I apparently thought you would be here to serve the people of the Northeast, not pull the wool over their eyes as you try to steal the election for your party.

Then offer an amendment, and have it occur after the October election. A novel idea, certainly. I didn't expect this thing to pass in three days, anyway (nor would anyone familiar with the process of legislation introduction), so such a clause wasn't necessary (and still won't be, but feel free to specify).

Secondly, from November 2013 through April 2014, the independent caucus held a plurality for all but two weeks of that. From May through September, Labor held the lead and ever since (until today, which I genuinely didn't even notice we were about to take the lead when I drafted this), independents have held the plurality. So let's see:

Independents: 7 months
Labor: 5 months

If you go back to the prior Census thread, you'll see periods in which Federalists and TPP also held a plurality registration advantage in the region.

Thirdly, what does this even mean?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ooooh, big conspiracy! Who are you, Jim Carrey? Said date was selected because a) it was the day it was introduced and b) said date makes the most sense to pick given the generally loose schedule of the Census being updated and the timing of Northeast elections. It ensures that the most recent Census Count should never be more than a week old when the election begins.

Census Atlasia
October 13, 2014

Region	Fed	Labor	TPP	DR	other	ind	Total
Northeast	4	10	8	3	2	11	38

Census Atlasia
October 20, 2014

Region	Fed	Labor	TPP	DR	other	ind	Total
Northeast	5	11	8	3	3	10	40

All that needs to be said. Keep on living that #KaSickLife you live.

Again, what is your point here? I introduced the bill before the last Census update, and I don't see any issue: the closest Census update to the 20th of each month being the one used is the closest Census update to the 20th of each month, so thanks for pointing that out I guess? The two largest groups have been within 1 or 2 people's difference of another for months now; such a grand conspiracy for one to pass the other in a random week.

Last but not least, I'd like for you to explain in full what sort of advantage this would provide to one group or another. This isn't real-life and we're not dealing with hundreds of thousands or millions of voters. There are three groups of voters in Atlasia:

1) Those who are zombies and vote for who they're told
2) Those who are active and vote for who they're told
3) Those who are active and vote for their friends

I don't see any instance in which such a change makes an iota of difference, other than bragging rights of course, which I clearly outlined as a motivation. If you have such a lack of confidence in your own party to be a viable, competitive force in the region and earn what is nothing more substantial than a title, then just say so. In fact, I encourage Representative Sawx to denounce his claims that his own party will always be in a minority status and call on the rest of his party members to counter this absurd line of defeatism. Your short-sightedness of the game's dynamics and blatant spite toward me are both disappointing.

If this change is really as superficial and minuscule as you say, then why are you and the rest of your surrogates so angry over a superficial change? Why is Labor pushing this bill so hard if it's so small for the rest of the public? For a matter, why are you descending into impotent rage when I mentioned that there was a clear conflict of interest in such a minuscule bill?

Jesus Christ, you people make Snowstalker look like Frank Underwood.

Angry? Impotent rage? You haven't seen me in this game in those conditions, apparently. There is a characteristic that older players in this game possess, however, that allows them to sift through the difference between legitimate concerns and pure bullsh!t right out of the gate, so I apologize if my nostrils flared for a moment. Also, this bill was my idea, formulated last night, without anyone's input or prior discussion. "Why is Labor pushing this bill so hard" - it isn't.

[Adam Griffin]

The attacks on this are bizarre and insulting to Northeast voters because they assume that order on a ballot in this game would affect the election's outcome, which is blatantly a joke... I don't think it's anything but scraping at the bottom of the barrel to try to score political points.

That said, to stop the faux outrage, why don't we set an implementation date for this after the October election? This obviously is nothing more than a symbolic move, but I hope it'd put an end to the B.S. complaints about this bill.

With all of that said, why even push for this bill?  If the order really doesn't matter?

It'll matter for a select few (i.e.: the chronically competitive such as myself), in a completely different way than is being insinuated here by the opposition.

[Mechaman]

The attacks on this are bizarre and insulting to Northeast voters because they assume that order on a ballot in this game would affect the election's outcome, which is blatantly a joke... I don't think it's anything but scraping at the bottom of the barrel to try to score political points.

That said, to stop the faux outrage, why don't we set an implementation date for this after the October election? This obviously is nothing more than a symbolic move, but I hope it'd put an end to the B.S. complaints about this bill.

With all of that said, why even push for this bill?  If the order really doesn't matter?

It'll matter for a select few (i.e.: the chronically competitive such as myself), in a completely different way than is being insinuated here by the opposition.

"In a completely different way".

How?

[Adam Griffin]

The attacks on this are bizarre and insulting to Northeast voters because they assume that order on a ballot in this game would affect the election's outcome, which is blatantly a joke... I don't think it's anything but scraping at the bottom of the barrel to try to score political points.

That said, to stop the faux outrage, why don't we set an implementation date for this after the October election? This obviously is nothing more than a symbolic move, but I hope it'd put an end to the B.S. complaints about this bill.

With all of that said, why even push for this bill?  If the order really doesn't matter?

It'll matter for a select few (i.e.: the chronically competitive such as myself), in a completely different way than is being insinuated here by the opposition.

"In a completely different way".

How?

Party brass (well, some of them) will want to earn the right of their party to be at the top of the ballot, well, just because. This entire game is "just because". Bragging rights and all that. In closely divided climates, throwing in a few perks like this might set off an "arms race" of sorts when it comes to recruitment and persuasion. Personally, I'd like to see such perks exist in every region. I'll refer to my original statement on the matter:

I think the intent of the legislation is fairly straightforward, though I expect there to be some contention. In many states IRL, ballot prominence is given to the majority party in some way, shape or form (for instance, In Georgia the party of the last Governor to hold office is at the top of the ballot). While due to the nature of and the sample size within the game I do not expect any tangible advantage being bestowed to a party from this bill, I'm always on the lookout for tiny perks that encourage party organization and unit cohesion. This is one of them; bragging rights for the largest party or group, if you will.  

[free my dawg]

Alright, my response to Griffin:

*I have my own ideas on the subject that I've already outlined.

*This would be an innocuous bill, but when your party finally crosses the threshold on the 20th, that's where I start to raise my antennae.

*I don't know - you sound pretty upset, even here. One could say you sound like a guilty man. And to quote the woman with the greatest ass in the Northeast, Nicki Minaj, that's why you mad. You tried to pull some bullshit, and you got called out.

So I guess I'll just propose my own amendment anyway so the voters can see the true intentions of this bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Representative Adam Griffin

[rpryor03]

I'll second that amendment.

[Talleyrand]

lol

So your arguments are this?

1. Griffin sounds annoyed.

2. I have no evidence that this bill will somehow affect the results of an election, but if I yell enough about partisan hit-jobs and subverting democracy, somehow that will make it true.

You'd provided no evidence to back up your claims, and are spouting off total nonsense.

Labor may be the biggest party now (I am assuming it is, although correct me if I am wrong), but it could very easily be overtaken by another party or independents again. At various times over my time in Atlasia, the Liberal Party, Federalist Party, and independents have constituted a plurality in this region and the numbers are very close now too.

[SWE]

Worth noting that the debating period ends after the October election begins, so this won't have any effect until the December assembly elections, and given Labor only has a one person advantage over Independents right now, there's no reason to believe that Labor would still have a plurality by then.

[free my dawg]

lol

So your arguments are this?

1. Griffin sounds annoyed.

2. I have no evidence that this bill will somehow affect the results of an election, but if I yell enough about partisan hit-jobs and subverting democracy, somehow that will make it true.

You'd provided no evidence to back up your claims, and are spouting off total nonsense.

Labor may be the biggest party now (I am assuming it is, although correct me if I am wrong), but it could very easily be overtaken by another party or independents again. At various times over my time in Atlasia, the Liberal Party, Federalist Party, and independents have constituted a plurality in this region and the numbers are very close now too.

Surely better than ad hominems. I thought out of everyone in Labor, you were better than this.

[Talleyrand]

I haven't spouted off any ad hominem attacks. I've simply pointed out that your arguments here don't make any sense.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I'm not terribly interested in this.

However, if we're going to have a conversation about ballot placement I think this might be a good opportunity to do so.

Unless I'm mistaken, earlier this session the Governor tackled an initiative moving the deadline for declarations to the Wednesday before the Assembly election (a measure I supported and would still.) That being said, so far it hasn't ameliorated our problems with write-in candidacies.

In the event that there's no clear resolution on this bill, how does the Assembly feel about a proposal listing candidates in the order in which they declared? Perhaps that would spur more Assembly campaigning and earlier declarations.

[Adam Griffin]

Sawx's amendment is hostile, of course, because he's trolling.

And I'm perfectly willing to discuss other ballot ordering systems (assuming the bill doesn't get hijacked by said trolling).

[SWE]

The sponsor has deemed the amendment hostile. Representatives will now vote on the amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under the SOAP,  voting will remain open until 4:53 PM tomorrow, as there are less than 24 hours remaining on the debating period for this bill.