Upcoming Proposed Changes to Unity (Keep Calm, Part Deux)
Day 2,021, 18:35
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Talostastic
Once again, there has been a massive resurgence in buttmaddery in the eUSA, though this epidemic is a little more understandable than the previous one I wrote about.
There was a mixup in WTP's Primaries. You can read Hale26's version of the events here.
There's also people pissed about AlexJ1890's article about wanting to move to a weighted or popular vote for Unity Primaries. They say it's the result of sour grapes, or some such nonsense.
Before AlexJ1890's article there was the outburst of people in #FedPartyChat discussing the legitimate possibility of The Feds breaking away from Unity because they didn't like the upcoming results given to us by the current system. It was short lived, and quickly squashed by the awesome Josh Frost.
Which brings me to my next point. Now is not yet the time to end Unity, but it is time to change Unity.
There are two ways this can be accomplished, but "weighing" a party's vote based on it's membership is not the solution.
The best solution, which ignores party size and gives everyone a voice, is an Aggregated Primary System.
Primaries will still be carried out in much the same fashion as before, with a given party doing whatever they have been doing to collect their votes.
But instead of "Winning" a party, at the end, all the votes are pooled into the center. Every person who decides to participate in their Primary has a voice. This leaves the security of those Primaries where they've been in the current system, up to the party holding the Primary, though there will be a centralized verification in my proposal as well.
There are still a couple of kinks to work out.
That role will the T6 play, since their current role is mostly a tiebreaker under the current Unity rules?
Will there be a certain Gap Threshold where we have to include the Party Electoral College to make a determining factor? (Think of it like The House of Representatives, where it's based on population, and The Senate, where every "state" gets an equal voice)?
Will it ever become centralized? Does it need to become centralized?
These are things that will be worked out in the coming days.
Rest assured though, the Party Presidents will have a proposal in front of them within a week.
Talostastic
Vice Party President
We The People
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Voted.
INSURGIO ~
v
o7
voted. We should change this to avoid future electoral problems.
What is to stop one party from 'stuffing the ballot box' with votes for their candidate? Say the AMP magically manages to get 100 votes for an AMP CP candidate, and that's enough votes to win the whole thing.
How will you prevent a scenario like that?
you can't.
Look everyone, it's the two BFFAEAEAE
Thus why there would be a verification process included. Surprising increases in participation would trigger suspicion.
How are you going to verify?
Why would I let someone else tell me if my own party's primary is legitimate?
I'm serious about these questions. I'd like to hear your answers.
Because Unity is all about working together and playing fair, isn't it?
That is my serious answer. Unity only works if we're actually United, not double-dealing behind everyone's backs. And right now, we're not United.
If a Party has a suspiciously high participation rate and refuses to allow it to be verified, that'd be terrible for Unity, and probably be covered under a provision in the proposal to disqualify their candidate.
Can such a scenario ever be prevented? How do we know such an occurrence is not already happening?
Since the popular vote doesn't matter, people within the parties could easily have multis on the forums to give a few extra votes to the candidate of their choice. It would hardly be detectable, by any means.
Anything can happen. We would either have to come up with some oversight or go completely on the trust of the security system of each party, as we do now.
You'd have to invent a way to detect multis that doesn't exist.
A well created and diligently maintained multi is completely undetectable. Period.
The difference being that right now, I trust that Proteus won the Feds. If you turn it into a popular vote, I'm not going to trust that he won it by whatever margin he won it by. He's the Fed candidate and they'll know that a few more votes in their primary could be the difference in a popular vote, even if their candidate loses all the other primaries.
Voted for, you know, actually doing something to fix this mess.
I was told to start hating here. I hate the color yellow. I hate sunburns. I hate Christmas bells. I hate pees. I hate baseball. I hate communists. I hate France.
I hate stairs
Voted.
Voted because someone other than a raging Fed got the idea and will be less likely to be written off as butthurt
*Any* way that unity is done is going to continue to get howls of outrage from a portion of the population - watching all the foot stamping temper tantrums going on is actually quite amusing - everyone wanting everything *their way* dammit!
Didn't all the PPs agree to continue Unity this month?
Yes. Yes they did.
Thought so
Let's let that Reagan guy be CP already
Once again, voting your own comments.
Too bad he's not running this month. He could be 0 - Superlative+1 in his quest.
The PP won't let him
Haha. So funny sometimes. First crowd-funding a vacation, then talking about yourself in the third person.
If the all the CP candidates in a Unity primary are acceptable (vetted by some mystic and arcane process) any op/ov system would work. Yes, there will be voting abuses but short of a whitelist of vetted primary voters maintained by the whoever (a system of even worse elitism and abuse), the result will be an acceptable Unity candidate with something approching a popular mandate.
>That role will the T6 play, since their current role is mostly a tiebreaker under the current Unity rules?
The same roll every other party does, duh.
[removed]
Gonna play devil's advocate here.
Why is weighting the vote a bad thing? In the RL Electoral College, Montana doesn't get the same # of votes as California. Not to sound like "an elitist Fed", but if the other parties want a bigger voice, why don't they recruit more members? Or merge? Why should we (the Feds) be penalized for having more members. Why should my vote essentially be worth a fifth of a vote of a member of the #5 party? Again, not trying to come off as a snob or anything, I just wonder about the inflated self-importance of the other parties, who say that we're "butthurt", and full of ourselves....but at the same time believe that being #5 gives them the same weight as being #1. That's not the way life works.