Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kay12]

A few questions about election reform...

* As far as I can see, it doesn't affect anything while it would make sense if the corporations could vote C+ with dollars when laws are conservative. Should the reform actually do something?

* Isn't there a long-lasting debate about the status of Washington DC and the inhabitants' ineligibility to vote for Congressmen? What if Liberal Election Reform would make Washington DC an actual state with two Senators and a handful of Reps? I'm not an expert of US politics, but isn't Washington DC quite Democrat LIBERAL-friendly, making it advantageous for Conservatives to try to keep them suppressed?

* There recently was a Supreme Court decision (IRL) that, if I recall correctly, was in favour of CONSERVATIVE corporations funding the campaigns. Should this be reflected in the initial setup of the laws?

[nenjin]

I'm not an expert of US politics, but isn't Washington DC quite Democrat LIBERAL-friendly, making it advantageous for Conservatives to try to keep them suppressed?

According to the 2010 Census, the population distribution of Washington, D.C. is 50.7% Black or African American, 38.5% White, 3.5% Asian, and 0.3% American Indian. Individuals from other races made up 4.1% of the District's population while individuals from two or more races made up 2.9%. In addition, Hispanics of any race made up 9.1% of the District's population.[73] There were also an estimated 74,000 foreign immigrants living in Washington, D.C. in 2007.[74] Major sources of immigration include individuals from El Salvador, Vietnam, and Ethiopia, with some concentration of Salvadorans in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood.[75]

DC is actually a Southern State. We don't really view it that way though, because it's the seat of US power and all the white guys hang out there. So yes, the argument has been made that DC residents are disenfranchised because they have no electoral representative in Congress, and if they did, it would probably be a Democrat.

It would probably be a liberal thing to do, to grant them a representative.

* As far as I can see, it doesn't affect anything while it would make sense if the corporations could vote C+ with dollars when laws are conservative. Should the reform actually do something?

Sure. Campaign financing is a big part of election reform. Even if it doesn't do anything, it's still flavorful and appropriate to mention it. It would logically dictate that more conservatives win house and senate seats...but that's kind of double-jeopardy for the player, isn't it?

There recently was a Supreme Court decision (IRL) that, if I recall correctly, was in favour of CONSERVATIVE corporations funding the campaigns. Should this be reflected in the initial setup of the laws?

The Supreme Court could pretty much be considered conservative right now, thanks to Bush's appointments and the still-serving conservatives. So the continuum of Election Reform would look to me like:

L++ - Corporations and no one that works for a corporation can donate to election campaigns. (That's so liberal it's broken heh.)
L+ - Corporations cannot donate to election campaigns.
M - Corporations can donate small amounts to campaigns
C+ - Corporations can donate large amounts to election campaigns.
C++ - Corporations can donate unlimited amounts to election campaigns.

[Kay12]

The current issue texts aren't so detailed which is partially good because they leave room for a bit broader interpretation than simply "can corps donate". It's centered on campaign funding, though. Maybe stuff at the C end should include that legal persons (corps) can vote, that a person's "voting power" is determined by net worth etc.

Somewhat offtopic: My personal election reform system (IRL) would include that everyone who wants to vote should pass some exam of basic political knowledge. We had a survey here in Finland a few months ago that showed that Finns who know which are the 4 parties in the government and the 4 ones in the opposition are actually a minority.

[Svirfneblim]

Somewhat offtopic: My personal election reform system (IRL) would include that everyone who wants to vote should pass some exam of basic political knowledge. We had a survey here in Finland a few months ago that showed that Finns who know which are the 4 parties in the government and the 4 ones in the opposition are actually a minority.

This stuff was historically used in USA to exclude blacks (who were uneducated at that time) from voting. USA democrats and even moderate republicans would panick at the idea of aptitude tests.

As for corporations donating money, I believe L+ would be a system where money totally plays no role in election - everyone gets the same amount of TV time, advertising is banned, etc.

I'd make it
L+ Political advertisement is banned and politicians are given equal time in media. Districts are drawn by a mathematical algorithm.
L Parties are funded from the budget, private donations are limited, districts are drawn by non-partisan groups
M Lobbying and party funding are moderately regulated.
C Parties are funded solely by donations, which are unregulated. Gerrymandering and corruption reign.
C+ Votes are bought, sold and extorted and democracy is a facade

C+ and C would give conservatives a boost depending on the state of workers rights and corporate law issues.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Perhaps the referendum system of direct votes on the issues could be tied to election reform. If too Conservative, the people don't get to vote on issues, only to elect leaders.

[Kay12]

We could also draw inspiration from the actual Russian Duma. A nice incident from a few years ago was when different parties rushed to be the first to push the voting buttons of the absent reps. Speed? Critical. Brute force, elbow maneuvers? Absolutely. Democracy? In name only.

[Servant Corps]

Making the Election Reform laws do something requires that we have Election Reform an actual issue that can be influenced (tied to certain sleepers and sites), as opposed to Election Reform being tied to how generally "liberal"/"conservative" a society is.

My idea is just have the actual "election results" (for both representatives and propositions) be slightly 'biased' by Election Reform, basically an official form of election fraud. L+/C+ laws sway the results of a prop by up to 5% in the preferred direction.

[mainiac]

I'd suggest that rather then just having an across the board effect from election reform, you make it affect the nominating process.  At L+, proportional representation is instituted, making third parties more viable.  This means that you'll see a lot more L+ and C+ candidates win election and a lot fewer L and C.  At C+, a rigid party clique controls the nominating process and few L+ candidates run (getting replaced with L) and most C candidates run (getting replaced with C+).  Gives the idea more flavor then an across the board shift.

[Lenin_Cat]

I dont feel L+ are crazy enough, because I agree with the majority of them.

[Little]

I dont feel L+ are crazy enough, because I agree with the majority of them.

[Angel Of Death]

I dont feel L+ are crazy enough, because I agree with the majority of them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I dont feel L+ are crazy enough, because I agree with the majority of them.

Don't lose sight of the fact that this game is played from the perspective of the LCS, who would obviously see the actions of Elite Liberals as clear and good. L+ wouldn't look anywhere near as good through the eyes of the CCS.

Anyway, the following political parties are in the game as of now:

The $$ Flag Eagle $$ USA Party
The Conservative Party
The Moderate Party (I think I saw this one as an election winner once, but I'm not certain. This may not really be in the game.)
The Liberal Party
The Progressive Elite Social Liberal Party

Now, sans the possibly non-existant moderate party, all of these have clear real life counterparts in US politics. Flag Eagle USA is Constitution USA, Conservative is Republican, Moderate could be Libertarian or Modern Whig, Liberal is Democrat, and Progressive Elite Social Liberal is Green. The  issue status on each alignment does fit well with this comparison to the real parties' doctrine.

It is my thought that we could assist in giving election reform an effect by allowing all five parties to submit a candidate for the presidency, but "corrupting" the public's opinion as it gets closer to Arch-Conservative through unethical campaign practices and corporate funding. At Arch-Conservative, it would be such that only $$FE$$USA and the Conservative Party have a real chance of winning, perhaps a moderate if the public is Elite Liberal in entierty. Other parties would end up with only a few percentage points of the vote. At Elite Liberal, the will of the people is directly reflected in election percentages.

[mainiac]

While the game is through the eyes of the LCS, it still helps to make the liberal agenda silly when possible.

Maybe L+ voting law could be: "Corporations are kept out of politics and everyone from the age of two up is given an equal vote."

[Servant Corps]

I don't recall the existence of the Moderate Party, but I do know that the Liberal Party/Conservative Party do nominate a "Moderate" if the country is so far to the right/left that it cannot realistically nominate a liberal/conservative.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In my most recent game, the first term Arch-Conservative President didn't run for a second term. Instead, the Conservatives ran a Moderate and the Liberals ran a Liberal. In Nightmare Mode. I've never seen that happen before now.

EDIT IDEA: New Elite Liberal Amendment: Reduce the Presidency to only having one term. New Arch-Conservative Amendment: Allow a President to run over and over and over with no limit.