Join the new world

There's been a lot of discussion in the media and forums lately about democracy in general and democratic process in particular. The PTO threat in the last presidential election saw calls for a presidential pre-selection to occur on the eAustralian forum prior to in-game elections. This led to a chorus of counter-arguments that the proposal is undemocratic and elitist. I don't seek to criticise anyone in this article, or to propose a solution (I'm not that clever). I simply seek to outline the major issues with democracy in this game from my perspective in the hope that it helps debate of this critical issue.

A lot of political parties are claiming the moral high ground on democracy, and to be honest most of them are justified as a political party that isn't democratic is somewhat rare. The ANI have weighed in with a policy encouraging direct democracy, an interesting approach with principles somewhat foreshadowed by the Participatory Democracy Act (now where did that go?). A nice innovation that is probably part of the solution.

With this as background I'd like to discuss some of the issues that I think affect democracy in eRepublik. This is not a party-political statement, it is only the opinion of the writer. As this article is a long-winded wall of text I have provided a summarised version immediately below.

TL😉R version

* Democracy is good, cheating is bad, m'kay?
* The in-game political system is a proportional representative democracy. This is a compromise on ideal democracy
* Direct democracy is a good principle and deserves more work, but is compromised by game mechanics
* Immense efforts went into repelling PTO in the PM elections, but in the end we were lucky to get away with it
* We now have about a week to discuss means of protecting democratic decision-making in the face of illegal methods that render the in-game system of democracy invalid.

1. Representative vs Direct/Participatory Democracy

eRep game mechanics work on the basis of representative democracy. Citizens elect party presidents, members of congress (senators) and a country president (Prime Minister). The senators then vote on issues on behalf of those they represent, while the PM (and his unelected cabinet) carry out executive decisions and make proposals for review by the senate. This reflects to a large degree the RL western democratic tradition (obviously with a lot of gaps and differences, but in principle a similar approach). There are some problems with this approach, as there are in real life. The in-game democratic system as implemented is prone to manipulation and skewed results.

For a start the system involves proportional representation. Senators in a small region (eg Tasmania) can be elected with as few as 3-4 votes, while senators in a larger region such as NSW require many more votes. There are 6 senators elected in each region (regardless of population) with wildcard being granted to those who garner sufficient votes. This means that Tasmania, with a population of 134 has 6 senators, while NSW (our largest state with 1776 citizens) has 9 senators. A vote in Tasmania is therefore equivalent to more than 8 votes in NSW. Given that regional issues are relatively minor in eRepublik compared to RL this bias toward small regions is inappropriate in my opinion.

Similarly the disproportionate voting bias toward small regions allows for manipulation of the electoral system. Leaving Tasmania alone for a minute (I love you guys, really I do) a senator can be elected in NT with as few as 5 votes. It is common practice in congress elections for parties and individual candidates to offer moving tickets to get citizens to vote in a smaller region where 1-2 votes makes a massive difference compared to eg NSW where 10 votes were required to get a wildcard in the latest congress election. Not that offering a moving ticket should be considered bribery, but it highlights the fact that with a little bit of gaming the senate elections can easily be manipulated.

The direct democracy model is different. It calls for direct involvement in national decision-making by all citizens. In it's purest form there would be no need for a senate, individual citizens could put forward proposals and all citizens would then cast votes. In RL this would be hopelessly impractical for most decision-making due to the immense scale of the task. In eRep the concept has a lot of merit, as it is relatively simple to conduct debate and polling using a forum. Of course game mechanics gets in the way, it is impossible to avoid senate elections. ANI have proposed a model whereby their members vote on issues and instruct their senators to act according to the will of the party. In reality this is closer to how party politics works in real life where party discipline is more strongly enforced than in eRep though it is a more inclusive decision-making process. So it is a good compromise and a nice innovation by ANI, well done guys. The Participatory Democracy Act (can't reference because I can't see the forums) allowed for a number of non-elected senators to participate in government debate. Initially it was proposed that these NESs have (limited) voting rights however the act was amended to exclude this right and the initiative has not really progressed since that time.

There is some great potential for the use of direct/participatory democracy in eRep, though game mechanics that enforce the election of senators and gives only those senators the right to vote on particular issues will always make it a compromise solution.

2. Manipulation/gaming/cheating of the in-game political system

As we have been the victims of a number of PTO attempts in recent history most eAussie citizens know a bit about PTOs. It takes a few forms. In one form a number of citizens move into a (usually small) political party in sufficient numbers to successfully propose their own candidate for party president. They then usually proceed to change the party to suit their particular political bent. Though it is frustrating for the original members of the party, there are limits to the damage that this kind of PTO can cause.

In a second, more dangerous form a citizen who does not have the best interests of eAustralia at heart can, with just a little support, win a senate seat by running in a small region by garnering 4-5 votes. If this citizen follows the interests of a foreign power they then have the ability to approve citizenship requests (10 in each term) to foreign supporters who are then eligble to vote. Another 10 votes could result in another 2 senate seats, another 20 citizenship requests approved, and so on until there are enough voting citizens and senators to affect national decision making.

The last and most dangerous form follows the second approach but employs illegal means, specifically the creation of large numbers of multi accounts administered by a few citizens to manipulate election outcomes. It was a PTO attempt of this kind that prompted this whole discussion in the most recent PM election.

I understand the views of both sides of the debate on this topic. Those who called for a pre-election on the eAus forum were trying to defend eAustralia against obliteration by a foreign power using illegal methods. This approach has some drawbacks. Firstly it does mean a proportion of the legitimate population who do not use the forum will not have their voice heard in elections, thus limiting democratic process. Secondly there is no guarantee that those illegally created accounts do not have access to the forums thus making the defensive strategy useless anyway. It was primarily the first point that was argued. To oversimplify the debate with due apology to all concerned it was argued that the strategy is an unacceptable compromise to democracy and if democracy is compromised our society is not worth protecting in the first place (I suggest you read the articles and forum posts for a more accurate portrayal).

As a communist (and let me reiterate that these are my personal views, not those of the Australian Communist Party) I have a deep affection for democracy. I abhor exploitation and oppression, and the democracy enforced by game mechanics is a great tool to ensure that oppression by a government of it's citizens cannot be sustained for a lengthy period. That said, for reasons outlined above the form of representative democracy implemented in game mechanics is by no means perfect and is subject to manipulation and bias. I therefore feel more inclined to defend people's democratic rights rather than to defend the in-game voting system. In a situation where it is clear that illegal methods are being used to subvert democratic process then I argue that democracy has already been broken by the cheats and multis. In such circumstances steps must be taken to protect democracy. To defend the in-game system in the face of blatant cheating is suicide and madness. It is equivalent to telling Morgan Tsvangirai to suck it up and accept the "democratic" outcomes when Mugabe won power in Zimbabwe despite obviously rampant election rigging.

In Summary

We got through the PM elections due to some fantastic multi-hunting efforts and the good graces of admin. Not to discount the effort that went into producing that outcome we were lucky. We now have a week, maybe 2, to get prepared for the next inevitable wave of PTO attempts in the senate election, and then again in the June PM election. I'm all for informed debate on this topic and evaluating alternative means of exercising our democracy in the face of manipulation and cheating of the in-game system of representative democracy.

Direct democracy has a great deal of potential, and the barriers to adoption are lower in eRepublik than in real life, but while ever we have senate elections enforced by game mechanics it will only be PART of the solution. Let's have the discussion now in an informed way while we are temporarily free from immediate threat.