ElPatoDiablo as Canadian Progressive Front's CP Nominee!
Day 1,809, 15:50
•
Published in Canada 
•
by
•
by Auk Rest
The CPF's CP Nominee!
The CPF Primary has officially ended, and with 86% of the vote, ElPatoDiablo has been determined to be the CPF's next CP nominee! Good luck to ElPato in the general election and thank you to the candidates who campaigned for our nomination.
In future Primaries, CPF policy will change, and we will first host a shorter Primary determining whether or not someone within the Party wants to run for CP in the given month would be favorable to the membership of the Party. If this is determined as a yes, the individual who wins will become our nominee. If no one within the CPF is determined to win this Primary, a general one will be submitted with all other candidates.
This is to make the process more fair and less biased towards CPF candidates in the General Primary.
The Seven Tenets of The Canadian Progressive Front:
1. Uphold the equality of all active Military Units
2. Make the accounting of government funding more open and important
3. Ensure Canada is a reliable and selfless ally
4. To respect, recognize and uphold the supremacy of the mechanics of the game
5. Develop a positive political sphere
6. Bring in Canadians to eRepublik
7. To encourage growth and stability to the eCanadian economy.
-Auk Rest
Party President
The CPF Primary has officially ended, and with 86% of the vote, ElPatoDiablo has been determined to be the CPF's next CP nominee! Good luck to ElPato in the general election and thank you to the candidates who campaigned for our nomination.
In future Primaries, CPF policy will change, and we will first host a shorter Primary determining whether or not someone within the Party wants to run for CP in the given month would be favorable to the membership of the Party. If this is determined as a yes, the individual who wins will become our nominee. If no one within the CPF is determined to win this Primary, a general one will be submitted with all other candidates.
This is to make the process more fair and less biased towards CPF candidates in the General Primary.
The Seven Tenets of The Canadian Progressive Front:
1. Uphold the equality of all active Military Units
2. Make the accounting of government funding more open and important
3. Ensure Canada is a reliable and selfless ally
4. To respect, recognize and uphold the supremacy of the mechanics of the game
5. Develop a positive political sphere
6. Bring in Canadians to eRepublik
7. To encourage growth and stability to the eCanadian economy.
-Auk Rest
Party President
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Good luck to ElPatoDiablo!
14% of your Party doesn't support the obvious?
and your point Rolo?
Good luck to ElPatoDiablo! x2
CPF believes in democracy, the people vote for who they prefer. Plugson received a vote, even though he wasn't running.
^ Oh, So their just uninformed? - Isn't that the job of the Party Leadership? - Maybe Funky was onto something....
How can eCanada be sure this poll was legit under these shady circumstances?
Rolo, we allow for our members to choose who they want to see elected. It's called democratic.
Why hasn't he released any articles yet?
Voted 🙂 Good luck!
Good luck EPD!
Good Luck
@Rolo: I can SS the Primary if you want me to
Q: "Why hasn't he released any articles yet?"
A: Because he's doing CP work and developing an article about eCanada's affairs, rather than using his time to run an election campaign.
But if you PM him, I hear he'll give you tanks. Double if you join the CPF.
Bonne chance.
I have a long history of giving away tanks for nothing butt plug your an old timer you should know and its double to members nothing said about joining although perhaps you have given me an idea for next article thx.
Always glad to be of service. That's my only purpose left in this game outside doing stuff for the MU, lol
I didn't know he was running till now.
Doesn't take long to write a paragraph article~
Well, my article for tomorrow is, well... A WALL OF TEXT.
On gDocs, its about 3 pages....
"This is to make the process more fair and less biased towards CPF candidates in the General Primary."
Hahahaha. In order to make the primary LESS biased, you'll simple disallow non-members from running?
How is that LESS biased?
If no one wants to run for CP in the party except for an asshat nobody, we should still hold a primary with the option that says "None of the above"
If more people vote that they do not want the asshat CPF member running for CP, then we should certainly have those from other parties run in the primary.
Otherwise, we'll be stuck with whoever sticks up his hand when no others want to run for CP.
\o/
Muglack, when determining if someone from the Party is interested, we will still vote whether or not that particular person should be nominated. If not, we move on to other Party's candidates. It is perfectly fair, and much more fair than running homegrown stock against everyone else.
It's not more fair. Because if you end up with a borderline candidate that a vocal minority support they'll get the spot on the ticket instead of a candidate a majority may support but was left off the ballot by virtue of being in another party.
You can't limit the number of people that can run and then say that you've made the process more fair.
"Otherwise, we'll be stuck with whoever sticks up his hand when no others want to run for CP."
Yah, I get that. I'm not saying I don't support the system. I was the one that pushed for a "None of the Above" option in the Crimson Order Party. What I took issue with is the theory that by limiting who could run in the Primary you were making the election less biased against the people you just forbid from running.
Muglack, you seem to not understand there will be a ballot option for "None of the Above" which would be to support another candidate's party. If Joe Average from CPF decides he wants to be CP, we'll put him in the early Primary, but he won't receive any votes and we'll move on to the general primary.
This is far more fair than running homegrown, known candidates from our own party against party outsiders who are less known.
I do understand, you fail to realize that completely disallowing non-members from running in your first primary isn't doing them a favor. You aren't making the process more fair to them, you're simply ensuring that at some point down the line a candidate with a vocal minority's support will steal the primary.
What you're advocating is a two tier election process where the first round is for members only, and if no one steps up you open the second round to outsiders.
The problem with that is that you'll very rarely make it to the second round, because people in the party will support their own even if the person is a borderline candidate at best.
Another problem is that there's a chance that a PP in the future will simply decide that a bad candidate has the required support and completely disregard your democratic process.
Like I said, I don't disagree with the system. I just don't understand how you can add restrictions then call it more open and fair
Auk Rest you should utilize Instant-Runoff Voting.
It might solve some problems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Instant runoff is flawed as well, In the case of the Serbs in the USA, what might be the result of a poll like this, assume there are 5 candidates and 100 voters
Serbs - 51 first place votes - 49 5th place votes
Other - 49 first place votes - 51 2nd place votes
Who has the majority of support? - Instant runoff would say the Serbs, but in reality the "other" candidate has more significant support
weighted point system is always the best way to avoid a vote split,
in the above example, 5 points for 1st, 4 points for 2nd, 1 point for 5th, etc
Serbs get 304 points, Other gets 449 points
Other has more "significant" support, thus wins the Primary
The CPF has used the system where we first determined if we wanted to run our own candidate or someone else's since the very beginning. TFD himself insisted that it was unfair and a waist of time for other parties candidates to run head to head against a CPF member.
We had been out the top 5 so long most of us forgot the process. It is more fair to the other parties candidates. It is every other parties candidate against the single CPF candidate if there is only one from the party.
Say 40% wanted EPD, 30 Firefox and 30 Rylde. Normal way EPD wins.
Simple yes, no vote.
Do we want to run our own? 40 yes to 60 no.
It is way more fair to the other parties.
Already had these arguments 3 years ago.
Assuming you had 2 inter Party candidates say Elpato and Plugson and the other candidate was Person X
Elpato gets 26% Plugson gets 25% Person X gets 49%
Majority of the Party supports Person X
Your way it would never come to that because 51% would have voted to support your own candidate (Plugson and ElPato supporters) and Person X never sees the CPF ballot
This example extenuates if there are 3,4,or even 5 internal Party Candidates
Rolo illustrated the point I was trying to make perfectly.
By telling people they can't be in the election you aren't promoting "Fair Democracy" you're crushing it.
Enough of this. The first Primary is more fair because if CPF members are put into a general election Primary, it gives hope to the non party candidates that they can win when it WILL be a blowout for the homegrown CPF member.
The criticism is unfairly directed at a system that will be better than the last couple of landslides ElPatoDiablo has won in EACH and EVERY one of the Primaries I have ever hosted for CP.
This first Primary will, for example be:
1) Plugson
2) Funky Hum24n
3) Another Party's Candidate
If 1 and 2 are not candidates who are strong or worth supporting, you shouldn't say that a plurality of the CPF populace would be stupid enough to vote for 1 or 2 and not 3.
It only works now because ElPato is a strong candidate
otherwise, If you had 5 losers running and each of them would have got 11% in an open CPF vote it never would come to that because the the "Should we have an internal candidate" question asked beforehand would come back at 55% for yes, even though the alternative might have garnered 45% on their own, but never got the option to run for the CPF nomination
ROLO, thank you for all your advice on democracy and also on how to do the internal voting.
Glad to see there is so much interest in this. Join the CPF and have your say.
How about we remove the CPF part of the equation.
What if it was the UPC and the two candidates are Jefflav and Frank139.
They send EPD a PM and tell him that in the interests of keeping the Primary as fair as possible TO HIM, he isn't allowed to run. In the event that neither of the two UPC candidates manage to show enough support to deserve the ballot spot, he'll be able to run against them on the second ballot.
Because simply letting him run the first time, wouldn't be fair to him.
EPIC had the best and elaborate primary system(a ballot that records second, third, and fourth picks). MDP has the most efficient and direct primary system(PP chooses whom he wants)
In the middle you get UPC, CPF, and the other parties
Each will manage the party as the membership permits
I believe that is the fair part of how the game is set up. It is social and dependent on the culture of a party at a given period ~ it is not written down that there are certain standards of 'fairness'
EPIC was not the best, as illustrated in my example above
out of 100 voters 51 first place and 49 last place votes beats 49 first place and 51 second place votes
Tremendously flawed system - lousy at achieving a consensus winner
okay for argument's sake (which seems to be the purpose of this comment thread ~ I suppose) what party has or had the best primary system?
Nobody has one, Each Party comes out and says their is the best, or most fair, or more fair, but the simplest system is a weighted vote system whereas, in example a 5 person race results in 5 points for first choice, 4 for second, 3 for third, etc - based of voting for preferred candidates in an assigned order
I can't think of a scenario where the will of the membership would not be satisfied in a total point system
This is of course if a Party is making the claim of being democratic, or Fair and what not...
Partys can do as they wish, but lose the right of those claims when they start excluding candidates and using tiered voting systems that do more to thwart democracy than encourage it
I would have expected you to answer that the “Canadian Armed Forces” party has the best or nearly the best primary system. Its Party President certainly has many ideas for primaries and a great deal of concern about ‘voting systems that thwart democracy.’
Though as I was saying, this whole discussion is more for argument’s sake than for the sake of applying this talk to actual gameplay. With Foxfire’s article plus this current one, it sure feels like V1 in the media today.
btw, I don't think CPF should try to lay claim that it is choosing democratic or fair methods above all other purposes. eRep's political module and general gaming culture isn't suited for real democracy and fairness, since PTOs, vote buying, and player lulziness/maturity tend to indicate that democracy is not eRepublik's real purpose as a game.
At best, democracy is a good talking point for article comments and for padding political platforms.
I have no issue with the CPF system or claims. In fact, as a whole I probably couldn't care less.
What I do take issue with is this:
"This is to make the process more fair and less biased towards CPF candidates in the General Primary"
Auk Rest is arguing that by eliminating a person's ability to run, the CPF is somehow making the process LESS biased towards non-members.
"Sorry you can't run. But don't worry, we're looking out for your best interests."
You don't see the disconnect?