eNational Primary System - Part 2 - Pre-empting eUS Political Vulnerability

Day 567, 16:03 • Published in USA USA • by Ananias

In Part 1 of this series, eNational Primary System - Part 1 - Land of Opportunity, I introduced my first line of reasoning for the development and implementation of an eNational Primary System:

The eNational Primary System being developed will allow for everyone, regardless of party affiliation, to be provided the opportunity to run for office.

I believe that the system is a critical leap in the direction of a more egalitarian culture of opportunity for congressional candidates of all parties of all sizes regardless of ideology.

Part 2: Pre-empting eUS Political Vulnerability

Another inexplicable design element in the eRepublik political model is the built-in vulnerability of default major party candidates. While many are made aware of this design flaw when reading media accounts of political takeovers internationally, some newer members may be unaware of the underlying game mechanism which make political takeovers possible to plan and simple, in some cases to carry out. As the Party President of the United States Workers Party for the last congressional election cycles, I think I can echo the sentiments of other Party Presidents when I say that it is not the ability for anyone to have the opportunity at candidacy in a state through our respective parties that frustrates us most, it is the inability for us to eliminate a candidate from candidacy under our party that causes the greatest angst.

We have no control over who applies for candidacy, and therefore, any hostile political takeover agent that decides to run for office under our banner in a state where we have no other candidates become our default candidate…and there game mechanism by which to remove them, we can only replace them with another candidate or a “blocker” who is selected for the sole purpose of removing the risk of political takeover of the region. Since the five major parties each have a “slot” for a candidate in every state, eUS vulnerabilty is multiplied to 255 (5 candidates x 51 states) possible default candidates. To exacerbate that designed vulnerability to hostile political intervention, the very fact that the top five parties are, by virtue of their member population, prone to affording the very anonymity that the hostile political intervention agents require for success.

In the past, the United States Workers Party, because of its prominence and membership has been an involuntary facilitator of hostile attempts because of the “default candidacy” game mechanics. While roundly excoriated in April for its perceived motives, the USWP put forth the only alternative to being the PTO “mule” of the eUS by developing and implementing a strategy, “The 51(52) State Strategy”, to both extend opportunity to our members and to, very successfully, block hostile PTO attempts that were facilitated by the “default candidacy” game mechanic. For the first time ever in the eUS, I believe, a Party President was able to select a good faith candidate to replace hostile PTO candidates in every single state that they were present under the party banner.

But therein lies an increased level of vulnerability, at the USWP we are fortunate enough to have enough qualified and willing members to successfully block hostile PTO attempts and provide quality choices for the eUS voter…but the other four major parties with equal vulnerability to the “default candidacy” game mechanism are likely not to have the organizational integrity and number of qualified members necessary to perform the same defense. Therefore, is can be assumed that they will become the new “intervention point of choice” for hostile takeover attempts. Or more simply, in March, the USWP was the hostile PTO “mule” but in July is could be the UIP, the Libertarians, the CvP or the AAP targeted.

And that is reason #2 that I am a vocal supporter of an eNational Primary System. While the primary system being developed does not eliminate the vulnerability of the “default candidacy” game mechanic, nor does it furnish 255 qualified candidates to block every conceivable entry point for hostile agents; instead, it preempts the takeover attempt, effectively neutralizing it by allowing the eUS voters to decide their representation from among qualified, good faith, eUS candidates from all political parties prior to the in-game congressional election mechanism; and then, after certifying the winners in those primaries, the eUS voting population is provided the opportunity to earn experience points through, what becomes, a confirmation vote of a previously eUS voter-selected candidate. So, while much of the resistance to an eNational Primary System is based on the concern over perceived infringement on the voting rights of eUS citizens, the reality is that, for once, the voter will have an unprecedented and wide open choice of candidates from most parties regardless of size, without the inherent vulnerability of hostile or unqualified candidates being fielded for confirmation.

In my opinion, the adoption of an eNational Primary System’s as a feasible alternative really comes down to a question of whether voters are willing to modify their behavior in regards to the timing of elections, or are more inclined to accede to the designed constraints, and political vulnerability, present in the current system.

I appreciate your votes, subscriptions and comments!

Next installment: Of Shenanigans and Snipers

Thank you for your time,

Ananias - Congressman for Florida
Party President, United States Workers Party