Join the new world

On the eve of the congressional elections of December 2008, we stand, as an eNation together in our hopes for the eUS economy and foreign policy. And yet amidst, arguably, the most pivotal congressional cycle in the 400 day history of eRepublic we find rampant disenfranchisement and disengagement within the eUS community.

For our community to grow and succeed, we must attack the problem at its root. While political party platforms and planks provide reasonable expectations for party advocates regarding our future as an eNation, the rank and file citizenry has been disenfranchised; their power as voters and contributors to society sorely diminished by kindergarten-level mathematical representation and an intentionally perpetuated ignorance of civic responsibility.

In reviewing the prior eUS congressional election cycle, the nature of the problem becomes obvious:

eUS Region xxxxxx CR xxxxxxx Pop xxxx Presence. Votes xxx EstPop
Alabama .................1 .............. 116  ......... 14.89% ... 7 .............47
Alaska ....................1 .............. 10 2 ......... 35.29% ...12 ............34
Arizona ...................1 .............. 130 ......... 34.15% ...14.............41
Arkansas................. 1 ............. 88 .......... 44.83% ...13.............29
California ................ 1 ............ 1069 ....... 42.37% ...161 .........380
Colorado ................. 1 ............. 160 ......... 62.50% ...35 ............ 56
Connecticut ............ 1 .............. 65 ........... 4.17% .... 1 ............. 24
Delaware ................ 1 .............. 17 .......... 26.32% ... 5 .............19
District of Columbia . 1 ............. 300 ......... 27.33% ...41 ...........150
Florida .................... 1 ............ 1227 ........ 5.91% .....45 ...........761
Georgia .................. 1 ............. 175 ......... 35.29% ...18 ............ 51
Hawaii .................... 1 ............ 148 ......... 14.29% ...10 .............70
Idaho ...................... 1 ............. 66 .......... 36.00% ... 9 .............25
Illinois ..................... 1 ............ 290 ......... 45.00% ... 36 ...........80
Indiana .................... 1 ............ 160 ......... 25.00% ...13 ............52
Iowa ....................... 1 .............. 67 ......... 33.33% ... 10 ...........30
Kansas ................... 1 ............ 112 ......... 16.22% ... 6 .............37
Kentucky ................ 1 ............ 108 ......... 28.21% ... 11 ...........39
Louisiana ................ 1 ............. 77 .......... 50.00% ... 13 ...........26
Maine ..................... 1 ............. 64 .......... 32.00% .... 8 .............25
Maryland ................. 1 ............ 98 .......... 12.20% .... 5 ............41
Massachusetts ........ 1 ............ 179 ......... 41.51% ... 22 ...........53
Michigan ................. 1 ............ 184 ......... 32.00% ... 16 ...........50
Minnesota ............... 1 ............ 129 ......... 37.50% ... 15 ........... 40
Mississippi .............. 1 ............ 62 ........... 32.00% .... 8 ............25
Missouri .................. 1 ............ 113 ......... 38.24% ... 13 ...........34
Montana .................. 1 ............ 43 ......... 117.65% ... 20 ...........17
Nebraska ................. 1 ............ 72 ........... 29.03% .... 9 ............31
Nevada .................... 1 ............ 67 .......... 26.92% .... 7 .............26
New Hampshire ........ 1 ............ 54 .......... 23.81% .... 5 .............21
New Jersey .............. 1 ........... 195 ......... 40.58% ... 28 ............69
New Mexico ............. 1 ............ 37 ........... 6.25% .... 1 .............16
New York ................. 1 ........... 854 ......... 25.90% ... 86 .......... 332
North Carolina .......... 1 ........... 169 ......... 32.26% ... 20 ............62
North Dakota ............ 1 ............ 24 ......... 66.67% ... 10 ............15
Ohio ........................ 1 ........... 261 ......... 31.94% ... 23 ........... 72
Oklahoma ................ 1 ............ 85 .......... 41.94% ... 13 ............31
Oregon .................... 1 ........... 136 ......... 31.43% ... 11 ............35
Pennsylvania ............ 1 ........... 264 ........ 35.37% ... 29 .............82
Rhode Island ............ 1 ............ 35 ......... 27.78% .... 5 .............18
South Carolina ......... 1 ............ 73 ........... 7.14% .... 1 .............14
South Dakota ........... 1 ............ 18 ......... 70.00% .... 7 .............10
Tennessee ............... 1 ........... 182 ........ 56.45% ... 35 .............62
Texas ...................... 1 ........... 537 ........ 34.86% ... 61 ............175
Utah ........................ 1 ............ 74 ......... 31.25% .... 5 ............. 16
Vermont .................. 1 ............ 31 ......... 33.33% .... 4 ..............12
Virginia .................... 1 ........... 194 ........ 43.48% ... 30 .............69
Washington ............. 1 ............ 324 ........ 34.48% ... 40 ............116
West Virginia ........... 1 ............ 30 ......... 61.11% ... 11 .............18
Wisconsin ............... 1 ............ 112 ........ 56.76% ... 21 .............37
Wyoming ................. 1 ............ 31 ......... 33.33% .... 5 ..............15

After researching the results of the previous (November 200😎 congressional elections, it problem becomes clear with the current method of determining congressional representation which is disenfranchising so many. Regions with lackluster (at best) civic participation receive equal power within congress as those regions with exceptional civic participation (excepting of course Montana for which their should be an immediate investigation of possible voter fraud with approximately 117% of the voting-eligible population actually voting).

Disenfranchisement

The above numbers provide the following evidence of voter disenfranchisement:

In Connecticut, one vote (roughly 4% of the population at that time) determined the congressional representation of 2% of the natonal population. Which would be roughly equivalent to 1 Connecticut vote being equal to the voice of 1800+ citizens.

In California, one hundred and sixty one votes (roughly 42% of the population at that time) determined the congressional representation of 2% of the national population. Which would be roughly equivalent to 1 California vote being equal to the voice of 11 citizens.

Clearly, the representation within the eUS congress has led to the disenfranchisement of those other 160 voters in California, when in reality a single vote would have been sufficient to establish equal representation with Connecticut.

While I have obviously provided the very extremes of the range for this purpose, voter disenfranchisement of any kind should remain an abomination to any civic-minded observer placing any value on the voter equality.

Now, prior to questioning the value I place on regional equality in representation, let us first discuss another contributing factor to the issue:

Disengagement

Our current electoral system rewards those congressional nominees in states with higher levels of civic disengagement, and penalizes those congressional nominess in states with higher levels civic engagement.

Our eNation is founded on the democratic principle of civic engagement, in which communication and get-out-the-vote efforts should be rewarded for their contributions to growing both the population and civic intentionality of our society; however, our actual practices are based on a homogenized and simplistic model.

For instance, states like Connecticut and Florida, which saw an extremely small percentage of their population actually participate in the elections receive the same benefit of representation of states like North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia.

Again, as I mentioned before, this is not about the given population of a state, but instead about the civic participation of the ecitizens of that region.

The average "presence" or participation in voting for the eUS is at a staggeringly low level of 35%; which, in the absence of having to wait in long lines at the polling stations or travel during regular work hours to reach the voting location, indicates a dearth of engagement. And yet, the actual representation for states with low participation has not diminished, nor has the representation for states with high participation grown.

Therefore, I believe the root, or root system, of the problem experienced by the eUS (and by extension eRepublik) is clear, representation should be established on a quasi-population basis factoring in actual engagement in the process.

A possible solution

One possible solution would be contingent on the programming of the electoral calculation function within the platform in which a candidate which was elected in a state in which the participation (or presence) rate was less that 30% of the eligible voters, the candidates position would then be replaced by a wild card. And that position filled by the highest non-elected vote receiving candidate in all states which qualified at the presence (or engagement threshold).

In using the previous election as an example, and with 30% as the threshold, 17 states would have forfeit there representation for the cycle based on lack of regional civic engagement and the 17 non-elected highest vote recipients in the remaining 34 states would then be placed as representatives.

While this may seem unfair in some quarters, the reality remains that some very deserving, and vote receiving, candidates have been eliminated from representing the high number of engaged citizens that sought their representation. Additionally, this promotes communication and a specific focus on getting out the vote.

While my proposal has many flaws which I am certain will be pointed out to me in the comments, it still remains that new solutions and a resurgence in focus on the promotion of active participation and reinforcing "the stake" in our society which every eUS citizen holds should not be deferred.

Our success of our eNation depends on it.