Electoral Reform Debate - Commentary Thread

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is misleading, because the sample size is too small to be significant. It is largely a function that the senators who, over that period, were the most active and the least likely to quit where regional ones. In fact it was always noticeable how few regional senators resigned due to activity. I'd suggest the high number of at large senators is because they kept on getting expelled for inactivity

This is a point that deserves to be highlighted. At-large elections have given us most of our least reliable and least committed Senators. On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to win a contested regional seat without working for it, whether you're an incumbent or not.

This suggests that there's something very wrong with these elections in terms of keeping at-large Senators accountable to their voters. Even worse, when an at-large Senator resigns, this usually triggers a national, single-seat election. These special elections are some of Atlasia's best, but they're hardly a boon to diversity and minority representation.

In two years the Feds have not won a special election for Senate. The Progressive Union and DRs did though.

You say that as if detracts from my point. I'm not sure how it does.

It is responding to your last sentence about the specials detracted from diversity. In both cases a minor party candidate defeated a major party candidate in a nationwide election because they had more swing voters at their disposal then they did in their one on one races.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So is the Labor Party planning to pass this to gerrymander the other parties out of existence or fail it to undermine their President? I'm confused.

Both, obviously!

#Laborcanhazitscakeandeatittoo

[Adam Griffin]

 

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: Something of interest that I just noticed - even if this bill is ratified by the regions, it will not go into effect until after the August elections. As a person who revised or added to a lot of the clauses toward the end of debate and is therefore familiar with the provisions (and also the intent), this is why I brought up the subject in the thread last week that expedited the passage of the amendment.  Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to meet the schedule.

Just pooping in here to remind Senators that based on the schedule outlined in the current text, this process would need to be completed - along with ratification - by May 3rd in order to go into effect for the August elections. This means that the bill would need to clear the Senate no later than the 26th to allow for seven-day voting periods in the regions.

Technically I think the date would be May 4th looking at it now, but that meant that 4/5 regions had to open their booths on or before April 27th for the 7-day window (or 3 regions + the South, which ratifies through the legislature and doesn't necessarily require 7 days). Only 2 regions + the South opened their booths on or before the 27th, so there is no way for the amendment to be ratified in time to be in compliance with the following clause:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Technically, "redistricting schedule" could be stretched to mean the entire period between elections (since the beginning of it is based on a period of time elapsing from the end of the at-large elections), but excluding a BK-style interpretation, it seems pretty straightforward that the "redistricting schedule" in this case begins at 1:00 AM ET on May 4th. This means that 4 out of 5 regions (or the South + 3 other regions) would have needed to open their voting booths no later than 1:00 AM on April 27th (plus all would actually have to ratify it). I suppose you could stretch the definition based on the classic "hours versus days" argument, which could allow up to the end of the 27th for the booths to be opened, but in either case, we didn't meet the prerequisites.

Latest Time By Which 4/5 Regions Must Ratify for August Timeline:
5/4 @ 1 AM ET ("Hours" interpretation)
5/4 @ 11:59 PM ET* ("Days" interpretation)

Earliest Time At Which a Region Could Ratify Based on Voting Booths Opening:
Pacific: May 1, 4:53 PM ET (OPENED IN TIME)
Northeast: May 2, Midnight (OPENED IN TIME)
IDS: Anytime* (POTENTIALLY OPENED IN TIME)
Mideast: May 5, 8:10 PM ET (DID NOT OPEN IN TIME)
Midwest: May 7, 12:09 AM ET (DID NOT OPEN IN TIME)

This means that the redistricting process will begin in September and the first election with districts will occur in December if it is ratified, since only the Northeast and the Pacific (plus the South, although it was opened "late" in a sense as well) opened their booths in enough time to ensure this amendment had a chance of going into effect this cycle.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You cannot blame the Governors for wanting to leave time enough for the debate to occur before their citizens were voting on it. This is a big change and the people deserved a public discourse. Regardless of the implementation, I think it is more important that all sides are heard on this.

[Adam Griffin]

You cannot blame the Governors for wanting to leave time enough for the debate to occur before their citizens were voting on it. This is a big change and the people deserved a public discourse. Regardless of the implementation, I think it is more important that all sides are heard on this.

Well I'm not blaming anyone: I'm just detailing what happened and what will be.

[Oakvale]

You cannot blame the Governors for wanting to leave time enough for the debate to occur before their citizens were voting on it. This is a big change and the people deserved a public discourse. Regardless of the implementation, I think it is more important that all sides are heard on this.

I'd agree, but unfortunately that's not what happened in this case.

[windjammer]

This is misleading, because the sample size is too small to be significant. It is largely a function that the senators who, over that period, were the most active and the least likely to quit where regional ones. In fact it was always noticeable how few regional senators resigned due to activity. I'd suggest the high number of at large senators is because they kept on getting expelled for inactivity

This is a point that deserves to be highlighted. At-large elections have given us most of our least reliable and least committed Senators. On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to win a contested regional seat without working for it, whether you're an incumbent or not.

This suggests that there's something very wrong with these elections in terms of keeping at-large Senators accountable to their voters. Even worse, when an at-large Senator resigns, this usually triggers a national, single-seat election. These special elections are some of Atlasia's best, but they're hardly a boon to diversity and minority representation.

In two years the Feds have not won a special election for Senate. The Progressive Union and DRs did though.

You say that as if detracts from my point. I'm not sure how it does.

It is responding to your last sentence about the specials detracted from diversity. In both cases a minor party candidate defeated a major party candidate in a nationwide election because they had more swing voters at their disposal then they did in their one on one races.

The Federalists have never won a special Senate election. You don't see the problem here?

Are you sure Nix? Matt didn't defeat Bore once??? I'm not sure.

[SWE]

It's both remarkable and fascinating to watch how eagerly Labor is throwing their own president and the key reform project of his administration under the bus.

I guess Simfan can no longer claim to have the most deluded conspiracy theory about this amendment

[Adam Griffin]

OK, first of all, some historical context: the system isn't inherently broken because the Federalists haven't won a special at-large in two years. Either the system has always been skewed against them or the Right just can't win at-large elections.

The organized Right (RPP/FED) didn't win a single at-large special Senate election from 2007-2012. The Populares won one and Jbrase (Independent) one another, but not the bulk of what comprises the Right. This means the organized Right has won 2 special at-large elections in seven years.

Even if it is the former situation, I wouldn't support changing the method of election just so the Right can be given an additional handicap in order to win elections, and I honestly don't think anyone who would advocate for the system using this justification would feel that way either. The Right needs to man up.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

OK, first of all, some historical context: the system isn't inherently broken because the Federalists haven't won a special at-large in two years. Either the system has always been skewed against them or the Right just can't win at-large elections.

The organized Right (RPP/FED) didn't win a single at-large special Senate election from 2007-2012. The Populares won one and Jbrase (Independent) one another, but not the bulk of what comprises the Right. This means the organized Right has won 2 special at-large elections in seven years.

Even if it is the former situation, I wouldn't support changing the method of election just so the Right can be given an additional handicap in order to win elections, and I honestly don't think anyone who would advocate for the system using this justification would feel that way either. The Right needs to man up.

The Populares and DR both won special elections because the RPP/FED supported keeping a Pop/DR in a Pop/DR's hands and to keep it out of the hands of JCP/LAB. Also because the RPP/Fed like shua/Spiral.

We also never needed to win a special to hold one of our seats because our people practically never resigned with two exceptions. In the first instance, the chair's computer got fried and he was booted for inactivity from the Senate and we lost that seat to a JCPer named Marokai Blue, even though we ran Duke of all people (it was a different time). More recently when Tmth resigned we conceded a seat to the Progressive Union for the sake of keeping a conservative in and a certain crazy laborite out () and he later joined us a few months later anyway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is misleading, because the sample size is too small to be significant. It is largely a function that the senators who, over that period, were the most active and the least likely to quit where regional ones. In fact it was always noticeable how few regional senators resigned due to activity. I'd suggest the high number of at large senators is because they kept on getting expelled for inactivity

This is a point that deserves to be highlighted. At-large elections have given us most of our least reliable and least committed Senators. On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to win a contested regional seat without working for it, whether you're an incumbent or not.

This suggests that there's something very wrong with these elections in terms of keeping at-large Senators accountable to their voters. Even worse, when an at-large Senator resigns, this usually triggers a national, single-seat election. These special elections are some of Atlasia's best, but they're hardly a boon to diversity and minority representation.

In two years the Feds have not won a special election for Senate. The Progressive Union and DRs did though.

You say that as if detracts from my point. I'm not sure how it does.

It is responding to your last sentence about the specials detracted from diversity. In both cases a minor party candidate defeated a major party candidate in a nationwide election because they had more swing voters at their disposal then they did in their one on one races.

The Federalists have never won a special Senate election. You don't see the problem here?

Are you sure Nix? Matt didn't defeat Bore once??? I'm not sure.

I'd forgotten that the Federalists have been around for 2.5 years. How time flies. The Federalists won two special elections in early 2013, which should have been taken as an indication that they stood a strong chance of winning the presidency that June, as they nearly did. It's only since then that they've been locked out - a remarkable losing streak for what has consistently been either the largest or second-largest party in the country.

Of course candidates from smaller parties can win special elections, but that doesn't necessarily reflect ideological diversity among their winners. Special elections are a matter of A) making it to the final round and B) appealing to the median voter more than the other candidate who accomplishes A. But one of the supposed advantages of at-large elections is that candidates who would struggle to win the median voter in a single-seat election can still win.

It's not fair to the voters whose preferences elected a candidate that everyone gets to vote on who will replace them, and you would not expect this process to produce a Senate that is representative of a range of public opinion. Moreover, this is one reason why the Senate's expulsion rules are frequently the object of Yankee's paranoia. As he's explained himself on several occasions, a united super-majority of Senators could expel an unpopular Senator (who nonetheless enjoys strong support among 1/5 of the electorate) immediately after an at-large election, under the justified expectation that only someone who can win the support of a national majority will emerge from the resulting special election.

I don't want to get too caught up on this because it's a minor point, comparatively, and the fact that special at-large Senate elections are so much fun is enough to outweigh the fairness consideration, as far as I'm concerned. I'm just extremely baffled to see Yankee making the opposite case now.

As taste of what is to come. This is a big change, and every possible is going to be fleshed out beforehand, because obviously, the Senate was too busy with the mechanics to do so themselves and spend more then a few posts on the proposal itself (which begs the point about a uniform Senate with little opposing views, something that would be worse with districts. The Senate should debate the philosophical differences too as well as difference views of the merits).

I will seek to provide the dissenting view where such is absent, and though this may often be devil's advocacy, I find the Senate is better with debate then just waiving stuff through.

Actually, I do share your point. But the problem is there isn't a good solution for it unless you want the parties to appoint the replacements in all circumstances. No system is perfect, but I also don't think it is a justifiable reason for going to districts, since as I have established, that at least with the at-large they can get in far better than with a one on one race.

[Adam Griffin]

OK, first of all, some historical context: the system isn't inherently broken because the Federalists haven't won a special at-large in two years. Either the system has always been skewed against them or the Right just can't win at-large elections.

The organized Right (RPP/FED) didn't win a single at-large special Senate election from 2007-2012. The Populares won one and Jbrase (Independent) one another, but not the bulk of what comprises the Right. This means the organized Right has won 2 special at-large elections in seven years.

Even if it is the former situation, I wouldn't support changing the method of election just so the Right can be given an additional handicap in order to win elections, and I honestly don't think anyone who would advocate for the system using this justification would feel that way either. The Right needs to man up.

More recently when Tmth resigned we conceded a seat to the Progressive Union for the sake of keeping a conservative in and a certain crazy laborite out () and he later joined us a few months later anyway.

How'd that work out for you in the end?

60% certainty it didn't work very well
60% chance of the end of the world

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

50% certainty that it did work at least until this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

for a

50% chance of Sanity

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This Senate coming up is going to be just slightly different.

Fortunately, for as much as I have played Gettysburg on the union side in Sid Meier's Civil War, I have played the Tobruk and Wake Island scenarios of Battlefield 1942 quite a lot as well. And I typically win, usually with the aid of excessive amounts of C4.

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know, this keeps on getting repeated as gospel, but the idea that independents and minority parties are better served by at large elections than regional ones is just empirically not true.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know, this keeps on getting repeated as gospel, but the idea that independents and minority parties are better served by at large elections than regional ones is just empirically not true.

The trouble is, it is empircally true. How many regional Senators have the DRs and CRs elected? None. They have elected three AT-Large Senators though. A party of that size  that doesn't break through, chances are won't last and we know what will happen with districts (see first Senate).

You can get 20 people more easily from five regions/districts, then you can from one. That is especially the case for an indy facing a member of a party in a one on one race. You can harp on all your one vote victories over every other party, but you miss the point that you still won that race every single time as a member of the dominant/power party in the Northeast. The same thing will occur in districts that is why At-Large seats balance out the regions rather well in this regard.

We don't need ten one on one races that elects all the same type of people to the Senate albeit by 1 vote each.

[bore]

Actually, like the vast vast majority of atlasia I do not know what happened in the first senate, but a quick look at the senate list shows this to be woefully inadequate at proving a point because, in the senates after, i.e. when atlasia had a chance to actually develop, there was a far more mixed spread.

The independent point is just wrong, as a cursory look at the numbers show. Not only are there far far more independents in the early days of atlasia when there were just districts and regional seats (the sea of grey proves it) there have been 4 regionally elected independents (including one in february) since the introduction of at large seats there have been 3 at large senators elected as independents and 5 independents elected from the regions.

Sure you can make a point about the lack of representation of the DRs and CRs but that can easily be countered by pointing out, for instance, that the tiny Light party had 2 regional seats but 0 at large ones or, when TPP had like 10 members they had 3 regional seats and 2 at large ones despite having almost no partisans to vote for them. Ultimately the sample size for small parties represented at large but not in regions and vice versa is just so negligible that, if we are being honest, we can not draw conclusions from them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Actually, like the vast vast majority of atlasia I do not know what happened in the first senate, but a quick look at the senate list shows this to be woefully inadequate at proving a point because, in the senates after, i.e. when atlasia had a chance to actually develop, there was a far more mixed spread.

True, once Atlasia had a chance to develop, but it does concede a point that the right needs organization or at least more effort to win whereas left or center left is the default choice.

Once again, in your figure you are citing the Independent Senators like Torie, Scott, Sam Spade and Hagrid. These are people with well established support and connections, as well as conditions in the region that made it possible. How many instances like yourself for instance, a non-controversial incumbent being challenged by a third party or a indy, did that third party or indy win?

Not every incumbent is going to be as crazy as Friz (not to be confused with Fritz), or as hobbled as I was in January. Not every indy or Third partier is going to have the well established institutional support that Scott (Light), Spade, Hagrid, Torie and many others had or had the potential to build on short notice.

A third partier, partiuclarly one that is either left or right leaning has a better shot pulling from all the regions, then winning that median voter in the Northeast. I contacted people on behalf of poirot, who just would not vote for him. There was always that voter who would normal vote right, but wouldn't vote for a Deus. When you have fewer voters to pull from, you have less options to win unless you already connected to a majority of the region's/district's voters. This is where the imballance and lack of competativeness will be created and this is why we are better off with half at-large and half regional then any other combination.

I do remember when HappyWarrior or Ben would take the Mideast and though the races would be close such incumbents weren't defeatable whilst running and only once they retired did the right regain that seat. The presence of two conservative At-Large Senators, another regional Senator or two helpedp reserve some semblance of a balance. With districts you could see five center-left incumbents who are all unbeatable by the left or the right.

[bore]

I don't disagree with any of that (apart from the third paragraph) but the same is just as true for at large elections.

Neither Jbrase, AndrewCT nor Wormyguy were unknown quantities. It took very special circumstances for Xahar and JCL to win an at large election (although they were largely unsuccessful for reasons other than ideology).

And, given that the points you make are just as true for at large elections as regional ones, it's clear there is no real difference in how they represent indies, which suggests that, as that's their supposed benefit (because everyone agrees their actual elections are duller than watching paint dry) they should be scrapped.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't disagree with any of that (apart from the third paragraph) but the same is just as true for at large elections.

Neither Jbrase, AndrewCT nor Wormyguy were unknown quantities. It took very special circumstances for Xahar and JCL to win an at large election (although they were largely unsuccessful for reasons other than ideology).

And, given that the points you make are just as true for at large elections as regional ones, it's clear there is no real difference in how they represent indies, which suggests that, as that's their supposed benefit (because everyone agrees their actual elections are duller than watching paint dry) they should be scrapped.

There was no region that would have elected Wormyguy in 2011 or 2012. He pulled libertarians from all over the nation and won because of that in an At-large election. He is a perfect example of the point I am trying to make, actually. The same goes for 20RP12 who faced the same problem as well by the time he was elected At-Large in December 2011. For the left, Antonio, Xahar and a few others would have been shut out of a one on one seat at the time as well.

JBrase would have won in 2012 in the South, but not in 2011 (with or without me running as Senator), when he won the special. He also then won reelection by once again pulling libertarians and other supporters from across the nation. The same is true for shua in 2011, shua in 2013 and 2014, Deus in 2014. AndrewCT would have won in the NE where he lived at any point except 2011 after Nappy took the place over. He is the ony exception that you list.

Thanks for making my point.

[bore]

I don't disagree with any of that (apart from the third paragraph) but the same is just as true for at large elections.

Neither Jbrase, AndrewCT nor Wormyguy were unknown quantities. It took very special circumstances for Xahar and JCL to win an at large election (although they were largely unsuccessful for reasons other than ideology).

And, given that the points you make are just as true for at large elections as regional ones, it's clear there is no real difference in how they represent indies, which suggests that, as that's their supposed benefit (because everyone agrees their actual elections are duller than watching paint dry) they should be scrapped.

There was no region that would have elected Wormyguy in 2011 or 2012. He pulled libertarians from all over the nation and won because of that in an At-large election. He is a perfect example of the point I am trying to make, actually. The same goes for 20RP12 who faced the same problem as well by the time he was elected At-Large in December 2011. For the left, Antonio, Xahar and a few others would have been shut out of a one on one seat at the time as well.

JBrase would have won in 2012 in the South, but not in 2011 (with or without me running as Senator), when he won the special. He also then won reelection by once again pulling libertarians and other supporters from across the nation. The same is true for shua in 2011, shua in 2013 and 2014, Deus in 2014. AndrewCT would have won in the NE where he lived at any point except 2011 after Nappy took the place over. He is the ony exception that you list.

Thanks for making my point.

I think it's fair to say someone who won over 50% in a one on one at large election could be elected in most districts in the country, because if JBrase did so then there is no way he just won with the votes of libertarians. With regard to wormyguy I don't know what was happening in 2011 in atlasia so I can't comment on the specifics but, and I know me repeating this irritates you he was probably similar politically to Deus and he came within one vote of beating me in a region which, as you acknowledge has a centre left tilt. That to me suggests that libertarians have been unlucky rather than structurally discriminated against.

I just want to reiterate once again that there is no disadvantage with one on one seats for smaller parties- in fact, it is probably beneficial. The PUs won an at large one on one seat, more independents have been elected in districts than at large, the example of the early TPP shows that regional senators can still win in regions where their formal party is practically non existent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't disagree with any of that (apart from the third paragraph) but the same is just as true for at large elections.

Neither Jbrase, AndrewCT nor Wormyguy were unknown quantities. It took very special circumstances for Xahar and JCL to win an at large election (although they were largely unsuccessful for reasons other than ideology).

And, given that the points you make are just as true for at large elections as regional ones, it's clear there is no real difference in how they represent indies, which suggests that, as that's their supposed benefit (because everyone agrees their actual elections are duller than watching paint dry) they should be scrapped.

There was no region that would have elected Wormyguy in 2011 or 2012. He pulled libertarians from all over the nation and won because of that in an At-large election. He is a perfect example of the point I am trying to make, actually. The same goes for 20RP12 who faced the same problem as well by the time he was elected At-Large in December 2011. For the left, Antonio, Xahar and a few others would have been shut out of a one on one seat at the time as well.

JBrase would have won in 2012 in the South, but not in 2011 (with or without me running as Senator), when he won the special. He also then won reelection by once again pulling libertarians and other supporters from across the nation. The same is true for shua in 2011, shua in 2013 and 2014, Deus in 2014. AndrewCT would have won in the NE where he lived at any point except 2011 after Nappy took the place over. He is the ony exception that you list.

Thanks for making my point.

I think it's fair to say someone who won over 50% in a one on one at large election could be elected in most districts in the country, because if JBrase did so then there is no way he just won with the votes of libertarians. With regard to wormyguy I don't know what was happening in 2011 in atlasia so I can't comment on the specifics but, and I know me repeating this irritates you he was probably similar politically to Deus and he came within one vote of beating me in a region which, as you acknowledge has a centre left tilt. That to me suggests that libertarians have been unlucky rather than structurally discriminated against.

I never said he he won just off of libertarians in the special, I said he won reelection thanks largely to libertarians as well as some other votes he held from the special and members of the CID party, which he had joined. He won the special in a three way Indy-JCP-UDL race and received the support of the RPP, his former party the Populares and even a good number of leftists won over by his appeals on reforms. That result would have been impossible in either of the two regions where he had ties, the South and the Pacific because they were dominated by the RPP and JCP respectively. Hence my point.

Wormyguy was far more controversial. He once falsely claimed that someone was Hamilton amongst some other crazy things. Beyond that though, the Northeast region was dominated by the JCP in 2011 and the liberals in 2012 who had first Napoleon and then Scott as Liberal Party Senators. You really going to say that Nappy or Scott would beat worms by just 1 vote? No, it would have been a landslide.

It is not about independents on paper. I was on the ballot as an indy in Feb 2012! But you wouldn't dream of counting an eight term incumbent in your stats on the superiority of one on one seats for indies. Hagrid, myself, Scott, Sam Spade, Torie, are not "independent" in the sense that wormyguy or Deus or Poirot are independent.

Yes, unlucky in one on one seats, because except for when the Populares invaded the NE in late 2009 and Jbrase temporarily supplanted the RPP with the same party in the South in mid 2010, a major libertarian only party has never controlled a region. Now working through the RPP or Feds, Libertarians like PiT and Maxwell have indeed broken through. As DRs Maxwell did become Emperor, against a backdrop of no strong Federalist opposition I would point out just like Spiral in the Mideast becoming Governor.

Which gets me back to my point, "disconnected indies" have it much better off in an at-large race then running in a head to head race against a candidate from the dominant party in that region/district.

[Foucaulf]

This is a funny argument for me, since the last time I ran for office I supported at-large elections. Given a proportional system and a wide voter base, I thought the at-large system should support more competitive elections and unexpected results. But, like on many issues, I was wrong.

I'm not going to bother responding to the Nays here point by point, but I want to drive the stake into one of their major fallacies. Any argument that at-large votes would benefit independents have to realize they still have to compete against establishment candidates in their races. I should know - I competed in one.

At a national scale, trying to manage everyone's votes is difficult. TPP people helped me with my efforts, but I had two weeks to gain name recognition on two-thirds of the electorate. And it's no surprise that parties dominate given the economies of scale they enjoy with such a wide field to cater.

And, given the parties enjoy this natural advantage on the national level, new players have the incentive to join a party instead of running their own campaign. Worse would be if they aren't even selected by an internally democratic process - but picked.

I'll side with any Labour members (!) who vote Yes, because that's the surest sign they're actually willing to work for their votes.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why not do this? I can't remember a time where the game was more boring than it is now. We have like 3 posts a day on the Atlasia forums.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a funny argument for me, since the last time I ran for office I supported at-large elections. Given a proportional system and a wide voter base, I thought the at-large system should support more competitive elections and unexpected results. But, like on many issues, I was wrong.

I'm not going to bother responding to the Nays here point by point, but I want to drive the stake into one of their major fallacies. Any argument that at-large votes would benefit independents have to realize they still have to compete against establishment candidates in their races. I should know - I competed in one.

You competed in a special election, which as the yes side has aggressively pointed to, are more like district elections then full At-Large seats by virtue of being one on one race. The yes side cannot have it both ways.

If you had run alongside Polnut, you would have won in April. However, you ran against a party machine in two back to back one on one races and lost both. If anything, I think your example makes our case even better.