L 15.13 - Descriptive Ballots Act (Debating)

[wxtransit]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Section 2: Requirements

1. Descriptions must be submitted by the candidates themselves to the Lincoln Secretary of State.
 i. The Lincoln Secretary of State neither endorses nor verifies the truth or relevance of this description.
2. Candidates must submit their descriptions before the candidate declaration deadline.
3. If a candidate does not submit a description, the area bellow the candidate's name and party shall be blank.
4. Descriptions can be no longer than 250 words in length.

Section 3: Implementation

1. This bill shall take effect immediately upon passage.
[/quote]

Sponsor: wxtransit

The mandatory 72 hour period for debate shall now commence. Sponsor has 24 hours to advocate.

[Peanut]

I was actually considering introducing this, but seeing how it went in the South I abstained from it. I'm in favor.

[Peanut]

Could I introduce the following amendments?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Section 2: Requirements

1. Descriptions must be submitted by the candidates themselves to the Lincoln Secretary of Stateofficer publishing the election, and may do so either by private message to the Secretary or in a publication in the affected candidate's campaign thread.
 i. The Lincoln Secretary of State neither endorses nor verifies the truth or relevance of this description, except when it be necessary for decency or clean government with the process outlined in Section II (5) of this bill.
2. Candidates must submit their descriptions before the candidate declaration deadline.
3. If a candidate does not submit a description, the area bellow the candidate's name and party shall be blank.
4. Descriptions can be no longer than 250 words in length or 1000 characters (spaces, one between words, not included), whichever is lower.
5. In case of blatant false statements or inappropriate content, the officer of the Lincoln government who first publishes the ballot may choose to remove it. If the affected party feels they have been the victim of unfair removal of the statement, they may appeal to the Lincoln Assembly, which shall be the final arbiter on the property or expectations of truth in a ballot description.

Section 3: Implementation

1. This bill shall take effect immediately upon passage.
[/quote]

[wxtransit]

This act would enable candidates to have the platform to share the key components of their platform more effectively with voters and, in addition, it would largely help prevent zombies mindlessly voting for their party's candidate without further thought. This act also ensures that all candidates can have the same equal platform to share their ideas.

Peanut's amendment is friendly; 24 hours to object.

[wxtransit]

I also offer the following amendment to Section 2 (24 hours to object):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

While I am by admission neither a member of this Assembly nor a citizen of Lincoln, I would crave the delegates' indulgence for one moment to discourage them in the strongest terms against support for this legislation, on the grounds that (a) it is a distraction from the actual causes of inactivity; and (b) it is a very bad idea in its own right.

I'll get to the Speaker's arguments in a minute, but first a general point: which is you cannot create activity by passing a law, nor can you correct bad habits by regulating them out of existence. The central premise of this bill is that the Assembly can promote regional parties and discourage so-called "zombie voting" by adjusting the size of the type on the ballot and adding a few lines of text that nobody will read. In short, it supposes the very real cancers eating away at our democracy are structural rather than cultural, and if we tighten the bureaucracy around our elections, they will go away. This is a seductive misconception that has been around forever, and despite the fact it has failed time and time again to produce actual, meaningful change, some continue to insist that we are just one new regulation, government program, or special committee away from Utopia. This is a problem—because it's demonstrably false, and because it attempts to address the twin problems of inactivity and malaise by creating the appearance of activity without targeting the source of the problem.

Regional parties are irrelevant in Lincoln, not because the size of the type on the ballots is too small, but because nobody has done anything to organize an effective party apparatus. That will not change if the Assembly votes to increase the type from point 13 to point 15, because—again—the size of the type is not the issue. Likewise, "zombie voters" do not exist due to a lack of available forums for candidates to campaign and make their argument to the public. There already exist a plethora of mediums for candidates to communicate with voters, from the Fantasy Elections board to PMs to off-site forums like Discord. I don't know of any competent candidate who doesn't include a brief 'elevator pitch' like that described by Section 2 in their PMs to voters before and during the election—and if a candidate is concerned that their message has not been heard, they should make the effort to actually campaign, instead of relying on the government to do their job for them.

In short, if you want to change the way our elections work, you need to change the culture—which means making a concerted and sustained effort to organize and engage voters in the political process to make the game better, rather than imagining the better game you wish you had in the form of a paper "reform" bill.

This act would enable candidates to have the platform to share the key components of their platform more effectively with voters

There are already multiple such platforms in existence. There is nothing to stop a candidate from creating a thread on the Fantasy Elections board to promote their candidacy, or contacting voters directly via PM or Discord to reach those who may not regularly check AFE. All of these strategies are regularly employed by competent campaigns and are the primary means of differentiating between an active candidacy and an inactive shadow candidate. What this legislation would accomplish, far from increased transparency, is to create a false appearance of equivalency between the two by giving inactive candidates equal billing with active candidates on the ballot.

Under the present system, the candidates' names are listed on the ballot in alphabetical order along with basic identifying information (state of residence, common aliases, party affiliation). If a candidate or party does no campaigning, very likely the voters will not recognize their name on the ballot, and the said candidate will receive very few votes or no votes at all. If this legislation is passed, however, and the government of Lincoln essentially pledges to do their campaigning for them (by disseminating campaign information as part of the official election materials), then active and inactive campaigns are equalized in terms of their ability to reach voters. In conjunction with the phenomenon of "zombie voting" (more on that later), this can surely only lead to more inactive candidates winning election.

and, in addition, it would largely help prevent zombies mindlessly voting for their party's candidate without further thought.

I say this as tactfully as I can, Mr. Speaker, but this prediction does not hold water. You cannot force people to read, period. You cannot force them to pay attention to information they are uninterested in, even if it is printed on their ballot. The number of people who try to vote before the polls open every election, despite the warning printed in red bold type at the top of their ballot explicitly telling them not to, is proof enough of this. If someone goes into the voting booth with their mind made up to vote the party line, nothing you, or I, or anyone else has stamped on their ballot can prevent them from doing this.

I take issue with notion that party-line voters are "mindless zombies"—whatever bitter hacks on Discord will tell you, there is more than one way to play this game, and those who choose to play by remaining on the sidelines and habitually supporting a particular party are not worth less than the obsessive teenagers who pour hours into their fantasy campaigns—but more importantly, the idea that you can prevent a certain kind of political behavior by adding a few lines to a ballot is, frankly, absurd. That is not how politics works, in this game or in the real world. If it were, there would be no such thing as crime or corruption, and we would all be living in Paradise right now.

This act also ensures that all candidates can have the same equal platform to share their ideas.

Again, they already do, and it is not the role of the government to do their campaigning for them.


Even if you set aside these objections, I should think anyone—regardless of ideology—would be very skeptical of a bill which declares the Assembly to be the "final arbiter of . . . truth" (§5).

In short: this bill (a) would do nothing to solve the problems it seeks to address; (b) would create new problems by promoting a false equivalency between active and inactive campaigns; (c) puts the regional government in the very awkward position of campaigning for candidates and determining the truth of their statements; and (d) continues a false and harmful strand of reformist theory that suggests we can create activity by passing more laws.

[tmthforu94]

The reasons described by Truman above are exactly what I vetoed this bill in The South, and why the Chamber ultimately upheld my veto instead of overriding it. While I am also not a Lincolnite, I do have a long history in this game, and while I'm a huge proponent of finding ways to increase activity/get active candidates elected, I don't think this does it.

[wxtransit]

In short: this bill (a) would do nothing to solve the problems it seeks to address; (b) would create new problems by promoting a false equivalency between active and inactive campaigns; (c) puts the regional government in the very awkward position of campaigning for candidates and determining the truth of their statements; and (d) continues a false and harmful strand of reformist theory that suggests we can create activity by passing more laws.

In response to A - With all due respect, I can't be the entire Region of Lincoln. I'm doing my best to help with activity, but I singlehandedly can't go out and remind every single voter to come and vote and recruit new people 24/7 to come to Lincoln. I'm introducing this to help nudge Lincoln in the right direction, but I don't have enough time in my life to go and babysit every single member of this region to remember to be active. And if what I just mentioned isn't the right solution, then what is? No one else has even attempted to solve this crisis. No one's put forward any solutions. I'm all ears. But no one's tried anything else so far. I'd love to be distracting from real solutions, I truly would. But I'm not distracting from solutions because there aren't any.

In response to B - This false equivilancy already exists. Voters, with all due respect to them, most often head to the polls without checking the actual activities of any of the campaigns and vote party-line or vote in response to a PM from a party boss. It's a small minority that actually is that involved to notice the difference.

In response to C - I agree that this appears a bit awkward, but there are very clear distinctions made in this bill to seperate the regional government from the statements, including a very well-displayed disclaimer and §1. In addition, every candidate has the same right to access this utility, so there would be no bias between the candidates petitioning for a ballot description.

In response to D - While it is true that a simple bill can't change much, I'm proposing this to make at least some difference in how candidacies and elections are viewed. It creates a new platform for all candidates to be heard. I agree this won't help much in the arena of activity, but it'll help at least reform the way we hold elections. And, as I referenced earlier, if this reform is so bad, what are steps that we could take to reform correctly? I've heard no suggestions from anyone so far, and this is one of the things we have come up with. This isn't meant to solve all activity problems, this is just meant to help voters know more about the candidates they're voting for when they go into the booth.

[Peanut]

I would vote in favor of this bill. I find that it is necessary to fight inactivity, and it can only be done with good, comprehensive measures. "Business as usual" has brought Lincoln to its current position, and that simply cannot continue. If you look at the situation, the necessity for a measure like this becomes clearer: is it really too much to ask for a voter to read a few words? I do believe it's not, I'd prefer to not underestimate the people in the region in this way.

Additionally, this would not harm the region's ideological integrity or our elections' fairness or justice. The government very clearly does not approve false statements, but should step in when it's outrageous or outright inappropriate, and I believe that how you said it is a misrepresentation of the provisions included in the bill.

I appreciate your insight and your comments on the bill, and I'm really thankful for your experience and how it can help us legislate better, but I don't share the idea at this time that it harms fairness or inactivity. I'll gladly hear anything beyond that well-thought out post, though. A solution I proposed is referring this to the people's consideration in February.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

In response to A - With all due respect, I can't be the entire Region of Lincoln. I'm doing my best to help with activity, but I singlehandedly can't go out and remind every single voter to come and vote and recruit new people 24/7 to come to Lincoln. I'm introducing this to help nudge Lincoln in the right direction, but I don't have enough time in my life to go and babysit every single member of this region to remember to be active. And if what I just mentioned isn't the right solution, then what is? No one else has even attempted to solve this crisis. No one's put forward any solutions. I'm all ears. But no one's tried anything else so far. I'd love to be distracting from real solutions, I truly would. But I'm not distracting from solutions because there aren't any.

I don't think anyone meant to suggest that you should be expected to save Lincoln single-handedly, Transit; if my post implied otherwise, I apologize. I sincerely appreciate the tremendous effort you've made as Speaker to get this region back on track, when it seems so few others care to try. That said, a bad idea is still a bad idea; and the arguments for adopting this particular article are lacking in some pretty obvious ways.

Trust me, I don't underestimate the difficulty of your position. Fremont was in objectively worse condition when I took over the helm two years ago; I fully understand how difficult it is to revive a region after it's gotten itself into a rut like this. If you're genuine in seeking suggestions, I'd be happy to talk with you or anyone else who's interested about the measures we took then, what worked, and what didn't. The short answer is that yes, Lincoln is probably going to need to be in intensive care for the next six months or so, and that will involve essentially babysitting the region until it has its footing back. That doesn't need to be just one person, though it basically was in Fremont.

[wxtransit]

In response to A - With all due respect, I can't be the entire Region of Lincoln. I'm doing my best to help with activity, but I singlehandedly can't go out and remind every single voter to come and vote and recruit new people 24/7 to come to Lincoln. I'm introducing this to help nudge Lincoln in the right direction, but I don't have enough time in my life to go and babysit every single member of this region to remember to be active. And if what I just mentioned isn't the right solution, then what is? No one else has even attempted to solve this crisis. No one's put forward any solutions. I'm all ears. But no one's tried anything else so far. I'd love to be distracting from real solutions, I truly would. But I'm not distracting from solutions because there aren't any.

I don't think anyone meant to suggest that you should be expected to save Lincoln single-handedly, Transit; if my post implied otherwise, I apologize. I sincerely appreciate the tremendous effort you've made as Speaker to get this region back on track, when it seems so few others care to try. That said, a bad idea is still a bad idea; and the arguments for adopting this particular article are lacking in some pretty obvious ways.

Trust me, I don't underestimate the difficulty of your position. Fremont was in objectively worse condition when I took over the helm two years ago; I fully understand how difficult it is to revive a region after it's gotten itself into a rut like this. If you're genuine in seeking suggestions, I'd be happy to talk with you or anyone else who's interested about the measures we took then, what worked, and what didn't. The short answer is that yes, Lincoln is probably going to need to be in intensive care for the next six months or so, and that will involve essentially babysitting the region until it has its footing back. That doesn't need to be just one person, though it basically was in Fremont.

Sorry if I came off a bit strong there - it wasn't my intention. And yes, I would love to hear any suggestions if you have any, Fremont's quite a success story.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Sorry if I came off a bit strong there - it wasn't my intention. And yes, I would love to hear any suggestions if you have any, Fremont's quite a success story.

Don't worry about it. Happy to help!

The good news for Lincoln is that things are not nearly as bad as they could be: in spite of a discouraging absence of initiative on the part of the region in recent months (present company excluded, of course), you still basically have the framework of a functioning government—elections are still taking place, the Assembly is still meeting, &c. The task at hand is to break the culture of apathy that is clouding the region, dismantle rules and institutions that are getting in the way, and organize what remains to best facilitate sustainable activity.

I'm not an expert when it comes to Lincoln's statute, but there are a few things that ought to be done right out of the gate, listed below in no particular order, all of which fall under the umbrella of streamlining government.

(a) Abolish the lieutenant governorship. This position became irrelevant over a year ago when the Assembly voted to transfer its only meaningful power – responsibility for administering regional elections – to the Elections Officer. It no longer serves any practical purpose—and any position that does not serve a practical purpose is a leech on activity. Any constitutional functions still performed by the LG can be transferred to the Speaker of the Assembly. To those who may be skeptical, I'd just point out that the Assembly effectively did this when it elected Transit speaker at the beginning of this session. There's no reason these jobs can't be performed by a single person, and eliminating redundant offices makes government more transparent and the chain of command more clear.

(b) While you're at it, scrap the Cabinet. This was a nice idea* that fell apart two seconds after it came into the world and has been a massive flop ever since. As with the LG, this is basically because there is nothing for the Cabinet to do—because quite simply, there isn't enough work being done at the regional level for the governor to need secretaries to help him manage it all. The only arguably essential office is the Elections Administrator/Secretary of State/whatever you're calling it now (and even then I'd argue that those functions could be performed by the governor, but there's no harm having a separate elections officer so long as you have someone able to do the job). Everything else is fluff and needs to go. Getting rid of it won't solve anything on its own, sure, but it will increase accountability—because when the only people in government are the people who need to be there, it's much easier for the public to identify underperforming officials.

Both of the above could be colorfully described as "clearing out the junk drawer." I expect these proposals to be met with a certain amount of resistance, because frankly creating useless offices that don't do anything is the Atlasian way, and Lincoln in particular seems to have a fixation with this sort of thing. Seeing as you're a conservative, I hope we can agree that big government doesn't equal better government: big, unwieldy committees with no clear chain of command and only a vague raison d'etre, always fail, because it's not clear who they report to, or what their mission is, or how they should define "success." By contrast, a governor has a clear mandate, explicitly enumerated powers, and a built-in review system that doesn't require whichever Assembly comes along to replace you all in a few months to remember "hey, didn't the old guys create some Standing Reform Commission, maybe we should check up on that." In short: get rid of everything you don't actually need (not "I see potential in this committee" or "wouldn't it be cool if we had a Minister for Silly Hats" —need). I'm rambling, let's move on.

(c) The SOAP should be looked at and overhauled in its entirety. From recent threads, it looks like you're already doing this, so good job there. One practical suggestion I'd make is to allow the Governor to take over for the Speaker in the latter's absence, and vice versa. This was one of the most important changes we made in Fremont, and it makes it much less likely the entire government will shut down because one person took an unannounced vacation.


Beyond that, there's not much more structural changes can do to address inactivity—because this is really a cultural issue that can only be addressed by playing the game. The best advice I can give there is to (a) have a committed group of people who will recruit new voters, hound inactive officeholders, and essentially be willing to stand in the breech and keep the orcs at bay; in service of which, (b) foster a unique identity for Lincoln that will intrigue potential new citizens, so that when you tell them about it, they respond "tell me more." Fremont achieved this by adopting parliamentary democracy and a regional party system; you can certainly try that, or you can experiment with other ways to make Lincoln's government and elections stand out.

One thing that occurred to me would be to experiment with other voting systems. Every other region and the federal government has used STV for their elections since 2004; opting for, say, a French-style runoff system would immediately distinguish Lincoln from the rest of the country and add a unique flair to the region's politics. This wouldn't even require a constitutional amendment, as per Article V§8 of the Northern Constitution, "All elections shall be by single transferable vote, unless otherwise specified by law."

Whatever reforms you decide to implement, they should be designed to directly change the gameplay experience for all citizens—not just active players. Voters who only check Atlasia once a week or once a months should be able to notice the change. Furthermore, there should actually be a change: passing a bill to rename the governor "Supreme Chancellor" doesn't really make a difference in how politics or elections work, it just adds needless complication while the process of governing remains essentially the same. Regional parties that only exist as a ballot line serve no practical purpose except as a vanity plate for candidates; regional parties that hold conventions, recruit candidates, and run GOTV make a difference in the political culture of a region.

And yes, you are going to need someone—or preferably someones—to get the message out: recruit new citizens, contact voters, reach out to potential candidates. Ideally the person leading this initiative is the governor. There has to be a sustained effort to keep the wheels turning; an active election cycle followed by two months of nothing is just as bad as if you'd done nothing in the first place.

I should stress again that this shouldn't be your personal responsibility—one legislator cannot save a region on their own—but that's my advice.




*Actually no it wasn't, but I'm trying to be diplomatic.

[wxtransit]

So where do we stand on this? While I still stand behind the aims of this bill, I do think it has largely been superceded by the Philadelphia Plan in a reformist sense, which has much more popular support with Lincolnites. If the rest of you all agree, I wouldn't be opposed to a table motion if we want to reintroduce this at a better time.