Tales of Congress, Part II: Elections for Congress - the process

Day 1,438, 03:53 • Published in USA USA • by pure_evil

If you nuke a forest from orbit, and nobody sees the mushroom cloud - does it still make sure?

Short version: It's topics that sell papers. So... against my will, let's delve deeper into the miracles of last election.



In my previous article, I've touched the issue of the wrong stuff's miraculous reelection. It was intended to be a sort of introduction to the first in a series of articles describing who the wrong stuff was and why it should stay out of the Supreme Soviet, *cough*, Congress.

Then, I happily continued with the first Congressman on the, as Eli Crownover would term it, "name recognition" list.

Predictably, I got flak for it. But not where I expected.



I got side-flakked*.

It looks like Congressmen don't care for getting the label "destroying the USA from within" and the general negative connotations it (possibly) carries - but boy, do they jump at you once you mention the way they got their seats!

So, I say "You must not be in Congress as you're harmful - and you got there not by winning the masses' love, anyway" - and I get flak for the second(ary) part, leaving the first untouched.



Zoinks, indeed.

It's not as if I can hope on a change in the process that gets the wrong stuff in positions of power, I can merely hope for a change in the results.

But noooo, I get dragged back again and again on the same topic and even am given the opinion that if (oh noez!) the process became harder (by changes in the game's source code I presume), we'd be weaker in terms of military capabilities.

[TODO: Image of utter shock and disbelief goes here]

Hey, here's a thought: let's not harm the military by making a residence requirement - you vote only in the state you were the day before the election - and presto! - source code changed, military saved, voting process altered, last-minute election rigging is last-day election rigging.

There, happy now - I made the suggestion you responded to before I made it - but altered it according to your argument which was valid when no such suggestion existed, but is invalidated once it appeared.



Man, time paradoxes can be a bitch sometimes.
So... Since mentioning the process is like shoving up something in a Congressman's somewhere... Let's delve deeper on the topic, maybe this time the flak will be where flak is due.

So, without further stalling...



Election anomalies

===== or =====

What I should be writing about, apparently. Curse you!



Exhibit A. Most** (listed) Congressmen were underdogs all day and won in the last minutes.

What does it mean? It means that the native population said "We don't want DanielCD in Congress", so, somebody dispatched a group of the party's (non-existing, of course) voters regiment to, well, give the people what they want, not what they think they want.

Is that a bad thing? Nope. Party Presidents know who's best to represent your state, who are you anyway to have any say on the matter?

Alternative explanation: Driven by a very precise mix of love for the party, love for the candidates and a desire of delivering a practical joke on both of the above and the enemy candidate, the extremely precise in their love party-line-voters expressed their free will.
They let their favorites uneasy and their opponents happy for the better part of the poll, just to jump from behind the bushes and scream "Gotcha!" in the end.

Exhibit B. There were very few cases where listed Congressmen ran against each other even though they're (allegedly) supported by a mix of parties.

What does it mean? Well, for one, it means they ran where they should run. I mean, hey, you're a Fed Congressman, that guy's a USWP Congressman - it doesn't make any sense to actually fight over anything of such miniscule importance as a state. Does it? Let's be friends, ya know?

Is that a bad thing? Well, erm... If they don't fight outside of Congress, who's surprised to see a country destroying (practically) unanimous vote in Congress? It's not like they need to get public support at the expense of their (sworn?) opponent.

Alternative explanation: Well, state A picked DanielCD, we'll run him there. State B picked SgtRock - we'll run him in his state as well. We don't have a mobile voters regiment to fix the election anyway, it's game mechanically impossible. And, as a party, we don't consider the enemy party's Candidate an enemy. We're all friends here (Oh, wait...)

Exhibit C. There actually were candidates in the enemy party's state. Remember, the ones the native population actually voted for? That were leading? Yet, they lost. Apparently, no mobile precisely distributed love for our man in the enemy Fortress State? What, party lines dictate you love only the man that won last month, not the one who's currently leading?

Is that a bad thing? Well, PPs went against the natives' will both in terms of who's not loved, and, who is loved. Yep, the ones who dictate who's right and who's not for Congress actually got out and pushed slower horses rather than pull apparently faster ones.
You're in good hands, American Comrades! The Supreme Soviet, erm, Congress is, well... Supreme!

Alternative explanation: We'll put those that our party-line voters hate in enemy territory. Yeah, we don't care for actually winning in an enemy state. It's Siberia out there and we'll throw our less loved there with no support and hope of winning.
Even if they're winning, let 'em fail. That'll teach them to... wait. What will that teach them to? All they ever did was being popular with the natives...


Exhibit D. Congress is as Congress was. This month, it's like the last. Except for a fluke or two (like Eli vs Yume in the same state. Hello, non-existing-PP-cabal, oversight much?) and the occasional Congressman that didn't candidate, it's the same people again.

Is that a bad thing? Nope. The US is just perfect as it is. There's no room for beneficial change in the country, and hence the minds that make it run. Besides, who cares who's in Congress, it's the unelected people like Kemal that run this country anyway. Let the guys get 5 Gold, maybe they'll donate it to the CBO, ya know, with the reserve needing to be built and all?

Alternative explanation Those people are the only ones qualified to run this country. You should thank the people (non-existing-PP-cabal, naturally, notwithstanding and not being mentioned) for choosing them over all the rest of the incapable candidates who, thankfully, failed. The PPs didn't show any political wisdom nor dispatched anyone to their rescue, so shut up!



There, I got side-flakked, and, side-tracked. Happy now? Sheesh.

Coming up next - what's a reserve and what's a buffer.
And SgtRock's titanium spine - strong, yet flexible.
Unless,of course, I get side-flakked again. If that were to happen, I swear, I'm going back to the asylum.***
* Put that into Urban Dictionary, I double-dare ya!

** Again, Leroy Combs Excluded®. He got ahead from 00:00 and stayed in the lead. Disregard my MU being Leroy's Legion and trust me when I say that the pro-Leroy tone has nothing to do with it. He's a cool respected guy and had the decency of declaring the taxes a bad (though necessary) move in his campaign article. The rest acted more or less as if a quarter of my salary was not government property at all, much less as a result of their actions, or (do I dare?) intentions. And it was not - I, indeed, am too lazy to enter into a donation agreement.

*** To get my (trench)coat, and maybe (fingers crossed! I hope she agrees!) spend a nice enjoyable dinner with nurse Mary who knows how to deliver an electroshock therapy like no other woman I've had the pleasure of lying in front of before.