Join the new world

I will be using some terms from my eRep political compass article, so you may want to read that if you have not.

I am against any freeze on congressional seats. I do not think I would work, and even if it did, I do not think that it is a good idea.

I have written four arguments against it, one to appeal to each style of play covered in my eRep compass.

I. Reallificans

When the idea of a seat freeze was first proposed, it was framed as a temporary "wartime" measure. However, in almost all governments temporary restrictions of rights often become permanent. In eRepublik, "wartime" never stops, and the party leadership will have no incentive to stop this freeze.

Even if the freeze is successful and was ultimately lifted, the success would be a huge boon to proponents of a primary system where congressional seats are divided amongst party based on membership. Some of the primary plans call for an off-game general vote. Some of the primary plans call for the Party Presidents to select their candidates. Such a primary could lead to a situation where citizens who wish to run would not be able to, simply because more than 51 people want to run, or because their Party President doesn't like them.

II. Justdoitarians

Restricting a citizen's right to run for office is wrong in any circumstances. If other countries choose to castrate congress in order to turn their citizens into voting weapons, fine for them. Let the foreign PTO squads battle it out all they want. I'd rather live in a country where people are citizens, not one where people are just tools to be used how the government seems fit. We already have a volunteer military voting unit for people who wish to subjugate their will to the government, we should not make it a requirement by taking away the right to vote in a competitive election.

III. Mechanicrats

It won't work, and you know it. Deep inside you know it can't. Maybe you can get the older actives to agree, and even if you could somehow convince the UIP to do it (which you never will), it still won't work. The younger generation of congressional hopefuls (like Ajay Bruno) will seize on this opportunity to run. The parties who participate in good faith will not be able to prevent this, because the Party President can't prevent a candidate from running under its banner if they can not find another candidate for that region. The states where USWP is not supposed to run will be huge targets for this, as smart young hopefuls run under the USWP banner, hoping to gain the 2-click vote.

IV. Statsticians

No one is answering the important questions is any way that is backed up with in-game data. Without this data, the merits of freeing up votes are suspect. How many active citizens does the eUS have? How many domestic voters per election are active voters? How many of these active voters will be willing to quit their jobs to vote overseas? How many of those who are willing will be available at the correct times?

If the number of freed votes is small, then is it really worth the effort and annoyance of the extra layer of bureaucracy? If this number is large, will this just make it easier for a foreign government to PTO smaller states here, as our voters leave the country? Do the majority of non-active voters vote on party lines, or do they make thoughtful decisions based on platforms?

These questions can be answered if we are willing to do the work. Defining activity is hard, but not impossible. One easy measure is to find citizens whose Experience Points have increased more than 21 in one week. As for finding those willing to vote overseas, we could send out a form. You could even include a question to see if they would only be willing if the freeze happened.

A simple experiment could be run to find out if non-actives vote solely on party-lines. Simply run five candidates in a medium sized state, where USWP holds a majority of citizens. Encourage active voters not to vote in the state. Pick one non-USWP candidate to run as the "winner." Have the other four candidates, including the USWP candidate, write party platforms informing the public that they should not vote for them, that they are simply running to block a possible PTO, and that the voters should vote for the chosen candidate. If the chosen candidate wins, then the voting population of the state read the platform and followed the directions. If the USWP candidate wins, then non-active voters vote party-line regardless of platform.

Running the above experiment would provide valuable data which could help evaluate the design of any sort of primary system. It would also provide a good baseline for measuring the effectiveness of platforms, PM campaigns, and ad campaigns. Currently, without this type of data, one can not accurately evaluate the effectiveness of any campaign strategy.



I wrote the majority of this before the USWP announced they will not be running. I will comment briefly on this. If they manage to not run any actives or incumbents I will be very impressed by the solidarity of their party. I think this is a great opportunity for small-party candidates to run, as the USWP has said they will endorse small party candidates. If they are able to organize their actives to participate in overseas voting, it will provide great amounts of data. Also, as many small-party candidates, 2-clickers, and opportunists run on the USWP ticket, it will give us data which will be almost as useful as the data that my proposed experiment will give. Everyone should thank the USWP for volunteering to become a large social experiment.

I know the UIP has been getting some angry press and PMs lately. I can not speak for the entire party, but I will give my person opinions. The vote freeze is a bad idea. It would be good for the UIP, due to our high number of seats compared to the other parties, however, I feel that it opens up the door to opportunistic candidates who are not qualified. By discouraging competition among qualified candidates, we will find ourselves with candidates who just want 5 Gold, or who have strong real life opinions that don't have mechanics corollaries, or are just not good people. I am glad that the vote freeze has effectively failed due to the UIP's refusal to comply.

I also take exception to the idea that the vote freeze is a wartime measure. It is the beginning steps of creating a primary system, and the proponents of this system are using the war as an excuse to try to push it through.

I am opposed to discussing a primary system without experimental data that demonstrates that it is designed properly. Even if we could design one that would work, I would be opposed to it, as I feel that adding a layer of out-of-game bureaucracy to the election will open the US to internal fraud and encourage elitism.