Houston we have a problem
•
by AlexJ1890
Hello eAmerica
It appears we have a problem on our hands. This problem is unity. And before you go all bat crazy on how unity needs to be removed, it doesn't, nor should it be. Unity, sadly, is a necessity until the pto no longer controls a party in the top 5, or unity controls more than 25% of the vote.
My problem does not lie with unity itself, as much as how we go about doing it. Currently, unity takes the form of each party in the top 5, excluding the AFA of course, voting for the candidates in primaries held on each party's forums. This seems fair you say? Well, it's not.
The current party member numbers are as follow:
Feds: 695
USWP: 526
WTP: 394
AMP: 391
So why should each party receive the same vote when they have less voters than other parties? The AMP's vote should not be counted the same as the Fed vote since the Feds have 300 more members. The way things are looking, one of the current candidates could lose because of this system. He will almost assuredly have more votes total, but could possibly lose because a few parties with less members get the same vote as every other party.
What's the solution?
Obviously not this
The solution is to total all the primaries votes together. Still have every party hold their normal primary, but at the end add them all together to decide the winner.
If unity is still going next month, I believe these changes should be implemented to make the whole process more fair.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading! A vote and a sub would be greatly appreciated.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
You sir have the right idea.
one person, one vote
voted
Yup
I vote this
One man, one vote
As a member of USWP, I believe this does seem like a perfectly good way to improve Unity, it'll also encourage parties to improve their voting turnout.
At least with this plan my sixth party vote would count and not only if there is a tie among the Top Four!
Feds didn't have a problem with the system as it is when they were swapping off with WTP for the #5 spot regularly.
Get your shit together Pfeiffer, This system wasn't in place when the Feds were #5. By the time we worked this out, Feds were #4, and gaining. More importantly, there was no major disparity between parties then. if you want to make bullshit accusations about discussions that you weren't involved in, then do it elsewhere...maybe eUK.
BigCdizzle I wanna have your babies!
Actually, the Feds and WTP regularly swapped out for #5 until the second round of primaries, because they were both having people sent to them by AMP and USWP. The lack of disparity didn't come until after these moves, when USWP and AMP dropped 150-200 each, and WTP and the Feds were each pushed up.
Since then, WTP crashed again, and the Feds picked up more members...but the point that there was no objection when the Feds wouldn't benefit from changing the system is valid. I don't care what you do, but I will always point out hypocrisy like this.
[removed]
Agreed, it was all fine and dandy back then. I don't remember any AMPer's giving shit about this even when we we're #1.
It was never a problem before this month, the person with the most total votes has won the most primaries too. I would have wrote this article no matter who was winning more popular votes, but losing because of the current system. Either way, it's BS.
This is only the case because a single party broke 90/10 for one candidate (the guy from their party). So, you're crying cause your guy lost in the system he knew he was running under and planned for?
Zero sympathy.
The fact that other candidates have lost by enough in other parties, and haven't been able to get enough votes in their own party to swing it to make it worthy of going to a popular vote just proves that now is the time that unity needs to change.
On a different note, you're in a TWO nation, why would you care or think you get a say in unity anymore? It has zero to do with the UK.
You act as if I don't know the system as well as anyone. Silly of you.
My citizenship doesn't change that.
Oh, almost forgot:
nice ad hom
Not saying you don't, just saying that now is the first time there has been a reason to change it.
Also, not an ad hom, just asking out of curiosity.
I'm British because I have a decent group of friends here, have had for years, and I wanted to take a break from the stress of all the stuff I did in America. The game has been much more fun for me since I've moved, and I can feel my batteries recharging.
The simple fact is that people are complaining because a single party went so far one way that it threw off the overall vote. Not having an aggregate primary actually ensures that a candidate has the broadest base possible, not just the deepest in one particular area.
Either way, Paul will run again, he'll win, and both he and Tenshibo will (I expect) be above average Presidents. In the end, only Paul was personally disenfranchised, if you believe that train of thought, and he;'s a big enough guy to let it go and move on to more important and pressing matters.
For one of our younger players, he's one of the most mature...which is why we probably both get along and butt heads in nearly every conversation we have (my being one of the least mature 😛 ).
That's a good reason, and I'd probably do the same if I knew more people outside of the US.
Also, I will admit some people's articles are getting out of hand, but I try to keep my articles hate free and on point. I'm not calling out anyone, I'm just stating my opinion and why I think it should be heard.
As was I. Simple fact is, this system is the one that was chosen for a number of reasons. Doing an aggregate primary will lead to people stacking their numbers, and there isn't a safe/viable/confirmable way to do a national primary without the API we had when we did it in 2010.
All of these options were discussed when we implemented the system, so I'll be curious to see what the current batch of PPs think they can improve upon.
voted
v+s
I made it this far.
you're welcome.
v370
and what happens after? feds get their CP almost every month, and when they don't, USWP gets it, then AMP and WTP revolt, the system crashes and AFA wins...
""So why should each party receive the same vote when they have less voters than other parties?""
Cuz' those parties are identical?
Ruled by the same group of people and full of multis?
Personally, I'd say go back to Unity the way Rainy Sunday tried to manage it. Contact all Party Presidents from the biggest to the smallest, not just the top five, doing a total vote count. An actual popular election, or as close as Unity can get.
Don't participate in it.
3rd party candidate FTW!
I'll do you one more...I think the number of in-game votes a player has should be determined by their player level. E.G. when Norbengo above votes, it counts for 62 votes. Me? 59 votes, Dibex 27 votes. Cubby 55, etc. HisAirness proposed something like this a long time ago I think.
Yes, because working in many companies should lead to a higher responsiblity/more power/however you want to call it concerning elections than fighting a lot.
Can I have some whine with that cheese?
See no reason why I should not continue and do what I have been doing ignore ePolitics.
Look the game is stupid, the admins will not change it.
Say there was no PTO, like players that are not RL Americans are worse than you are.
What would then would happen?
The same .... useless alliances.
The same ..... corruption
I hate ePolitics.
What are you talking about lol? There wasn't any kind of huge alliance of parties a few years ago before Ajay had a significant amount of power.
While I like this idea I find it very funny it is only being supported now that it helps the Feds. If we are going to continue along with this though we should establish a benchmark of what percentage of the vote the AFA can win, that we feel safe enough to end Unity.
So how many of those votes are generated by those getting citizenship on voting day?
That seems to be the norm
And what about the people arrived in uswp for ATO but never went back. The month before another party needed ATO help. Party members aren't really showing how things actually are.
I would go with combining all votes from top4 parties..
At least it's a departure from the talk of breaking away from Unity yesterday in #FedPartyChat if Paul didn't win the primaries.
Then again, as the vPP of WTP, I support (and am trying to help work out the logistics of) a Popular Primary.
Dont calculate party size, ther are ppl who are not in party but vote for same of them. This mean each ppl who vote and are not in party give voice for them. i think its better solution give parlament slot by voter sum not party size 😛
That's exactly what they're talking about, total votes, not weight by party size.
However it is done some people will always complain. I do find it amusing this is being pushed by the Feds only now they are the number one party though LOL
For what it's worth, the PP's were pulled together with a couple of reps from gov/DHS and did actually agree we weren't yet at a stage where we could dispense with Unity, including the Feds PP - I'd hate to see them go back on their agreements.
I still stand by that statement, although some things happening today make it look less and less viable.
As far as I can tell, we're not dispensing with Unity, we're improving it.
BICAMERAL IS A MUST, RESPECT THE LARGE STATES, JUST THE HOUSE, NO SENATE, POPULATION IS POWER.
It's a nice idea but your system is encouraging the bigger party to always win since they have more. The system we have now is fair enough that the bigger party isn't stronger than any of the others. I say we keep what we have and stick with it.
Sorry, but this is just totally hypocritical.
This is probably coming up now for 2 reasons.
1. Everyone hates Unity and we're coming to the tail end of needing it.
2. This could be the first month that the system conflicts with a popular vote. Most months they jive, but this month it may not.
No one is suggesting we change the system this month, and before all you Fed-haters lose your freaking minds, WTP is the party that had been putting all the work into a straight popular vote. I remember the early stages of this latest round of unity and I know we were stuck with representative democracy because we didn't have a system for popular vote that everyone would agree to. If there is a way to do it that people would agree to, then it should be considered, I would think.
Thank you fg. I haven't been around much today to respond, and this is exactly what this article is about.
It is interesting to see comments from people who apparently hate the idea of popular vote. Makes you wonder if they'll ever let Unity end.