Why a Popular Vote isn't the Answer
Israel Stevens
Editor’s Note: I’m certainly not saying that our current system is perfect. It’s not. But that doesn’t mean that the opposite is better/
In the aftermath of the most recent Unity Election, there have been many calls to completely overhaul the system. With the most drastic change discarding the electoral system and moving to a pure popular vote.
For all of Unity’s faults and problems (and they are numerous), moving to a popular system is not the best way forward.
I’m going to use two very different Party Presidents for my argument. The first is Othere, Party President of the USWP, currently the third largest party in America with 513 people.
The second is Candor, Party President of the NoS Dive Bar, currently the 23rd largest party in America with 10 people.
In a popular system, these two would have equal power. Candor’s vote for President would carry the same weight as Othere’s. No strings attached. One person, equals one vote.
Why is this a problem?
Because Othere’s party is Fifty times larger than Candor’s.
It is no secret that on Presidential election day, the many two clickers that our country houses simply look at which candidate their party endorsed, and vote for him. It’s the way it’s always been. It’s why Party Endorsements have always been the most important aspect of any Presidential Campaign. Win the biggest Party Endorsements, and their voting bloc of two clickers can carry you into the Whitehouse.
It’s Presidential Campaigning 101.
So why then, should Candor’s vote in the NoS Dive Bar primary, carry the same weight as Othere’s? Whichever candidate Othere’s party endorses is going to receive a significant bloc of voters on the 5th.
The NoS Dive Bar does not have anywhere close to the same voting power that the USWP does. No 6th party has the same voting power of a Top 5. It’s simply math.
Any vote cast in a top 5 primary, carries with it the weight of hundreds more two clickers. Those are the votes that actually matter on the 5th, because of game mechanics.
Reducing the election to a popular vote strips the Top 5 parties of their inherent power. It makes the hard work that they have put into building a powerful party, worthless.
What is the point of a Top 5 Party Endorsement if it can be usurped by a handful of people?
Our current system is by no means perfect. But moving to a Popular Vote is a knee jerk reaction that is not the right decision.
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_
😑_-
Do your part to fight the PTO! Join the American Military Party! Click the banner to go to our forums!
Comments
Agreed. Best of luck continuing into the future! If there's one thing even enemies can agree on it's that PTOs are never good and never the answer.
[removed]
""Why a Popular Vote isn't the Answer?""
Because this is a dictatorship?
Every single one dictatorships defended its actions by the"greater good".
For nazis it was all because of the Jews, for communists it was all because of capitalists and now for you it's all because of the AFA. But the truth is, it's all just about keeping power...
for you it's all because of the AFA. But the truth is, it's all just about keeping power...
x1,000,000
I don't see the problem then. If all you said is correct, then by your own calculations, Candor (in your example) shouldn't win the primary by popular vote. Because the members of the glorious top 5 party will vote for their favorite top 5 candidate. And once this is done the Unity candidate will get the endorsements of all Unity parties.
Now, if the other top 5 parties decide to stand behind the small party candidate in the primary, then that's no longer a small party candidate. That's just an able candidate who comes FROM a small party, but obviously commands enough respect in top 5 to be able to get votes on his/her own.
In either case, a popular vote will definitely not kill the efforts or membership of ANY top 5 on its own.
Isn't it more simple just to win elections on Saturday? (:
Would it be possible to do a popular vote with the people and have parties have little to do with it? Each person gets one vote in a unity process, not each party.
that would be impractical because of the power of two-clickers. AMP gets a turn out about 1/8 of the feds at the most and in game the proportion is AMP is about 2/3 of the feds see the problem? Unless you wanted to do an electoral college where parties get credit based on membership such as Feds =1, AMP= 2/3 and so on any other system would be impractical.
this was not meant in anyway of derailing the AMP.
Alright, makes sense. It was an actual question, not criticism. Though, wouldn't two-clickers then still have plenty of influence since they would determine a few electoral votes from the parties they're in anyways?
don't uite understand what you're saying there but another system that Drew Blood just suggested that makkes sense is mm the whole party for their vote on canidates.
I'll try to reword it then, I didn't make sense when I read it over again either, lol. Don't two clickers have just as much influence in primaries? If the feds have a huge two-clicker vote, don't two-clickers have a major say in one of the electoral votes for the new President?
at the moment no. Currently each party gets 1 vote.
This seems like an argument against Unity to me.
Would it be possible to do a popular vote with the people and have parties have little to do with it? Each person gets one vote in a unity process, not each party. x2
that would be impractical because of the power of two-clickers. AMP gets a turn out about 1/8 of the feds at the most in the forum party primaries and the in game the proportion is AMP is about 2/3 of the feds see the problem? Unless you wanted to do an electoral college where parties get credit based on membership such as Feds =1, AMP= 2/3 and so on any other system would be impractical.
this is not in any way meant to derail amp. They are really powerful still.
I don't understand why it would be impractical. It opens up the voter base more, it gets rid of the unequal votes of each party, and makes the election as close to a general election as possible without having in game process. It gets rid of all the party sillyness
For example feds would be a little over represented because we have such a huge amount of forum going people.
'So why then, should Candor’s vote in the NoS Dive Bar primary, carry the same weight as Othere’s?'
Because we are all equal and every vote -even the small 6th parties- should be counted, if your candidate is the most respect then he will get the vote; if not....
Think about two-clickers they don't vote in forums. So Othere's vote carrys 50x more weight than Candor's.
So find a way to get your two-clicker vote out. Use a non-forum system. Plenty of parties have no problem getting out the vote in their primaries. Any argument against it is just uncreative whining.
how would you do a non-forum system? explain please?
If nothing else have each party member PM the PP with their vote...simple...yes...?
that could work perfectly
Once again you're assuming that less active citizens are stupid and uninformed, IMO less active citizens are both smart and informed; your problem is you can't control them in a popular in game election....
[removed]
Find a way for me to quantify the number of two-clickers in a given party that will participate in a given election, and your argument against straight popular carries weight.
If you feel your party's voice isn't heard enough in a primary, get the vote out harder next time.
Do you know what popular means? It should mean that members of Othere's party vote, and so do members of Candor's party. Since Othere's party has 50× more members, there will be 50× more votes from Othere's party than from Candor's party (assuming all members vote).
We all know that only a small percentage of members vote in primaries, but even then, the advantage is strongly in the top 5 party's favor. I'm assuming Israel talks about a situation where some of the top 5 parties gang up against the other (presumably USWP) to elect a small party candidate. Hmmm, how must that feel? Kinda like what this month's primary felt for the Feds maybe?
I do believe not all members of larger parties think the same. So, the output of the larger party would be something like 40% option A, 30% option B and 15% option C, 10% option D and 5% option E, for example.
I agree with Hostilian that the parties would split votes, not all go to the "primary winner."
"moving to a pure popular vote."
_______________
That is what the in game election already is.
The simplest and likely most responsible way is for PPs to take their responsibility very seriously, and be accountable to their membership. Make the choice of candidate and stand behind the decision at PP elections. That would entail individual party primaries being "advisory" of course. Poor decisions get punished during PP elections, the Party itself gets punished during congressionals and may find its membership change. Good decisions get rewarded.
Your argument is sh*it! How many of our CP's have lost the endorsement game and not the election?
That fact this has happened more than once shows that given the right candidate the "two-clickers" will vote for a candidate not endorsed by their party.
His argument is indeed shit. Hardly convincing, too.
This is as much bull as CTRL was. It's time to put all the terrible elitists out to pasture, from RGR to, well, scroll up and I'm sure you'll find a few.
says the guy who excludes 35% of the country from ST6
No one is excluded, they just can't be AFA and ST6 at the same time. Choices, choices.
And technically we exclude over 90% because of our D4 20k+ hit standards. So you wouldn't qualify anyway.
how racist.
shame on you
and idgaf about the military aspect of eRep
Then don't complain about it?
RGR has been the same level, since I started playing.
Elitism is bad, mkay
Unity is bad, mkay
AFA is good, mkay
Relax Cubby, you`re just as elitist as most of them.
All Parties vote whether in the Top 5 or not. All votes are votes are added together. Winner gets all of the endorsements. Closest we can get to democracy in the current atmosphere.
So you basically say Unity is not perfect but you are defending it and doing nothing to improve it? GJ
your description is inaccurate, Israel.
saying that Othere and Candor would each have an equal vote is not a Popular Vote, that's the same as what we have now-- very much like the RL Electoral College giving all of a State's votes to whoever got the majority in that State.
USWP having 500+ votes total, some for this candidate and some for the other; NoS Dive having ten votes, some for this candidate and some for the other; every Party having a Primary and every member's vote being counted-- THAT's counting every participating Party member's vote, THAT's a Popular Vote.
WATT????
"What is the point of a Top 5 Party Endorsement if it can be usurped by a handful of people?"
Weren't you just saying that a popular vote would prevent that because "No 6th party has the same voting power of a Top 5. It’s simply math."? How does a popular vote make a handful of people able to usurp elections then?
I fail to see how giving the top 5 more votes "makes the hard work that they have put into building a powerful party, worthless."