NPC Elections - Rules and Results Thread

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

FTR, Fianna Frémont will co-endorse the Labor candidates for governor, House, and Senate in North Dakota.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Peace will compete in all gubernatorial and mayoral contests where there is no Labor incumbent.

[Lumine]

Thank you all for the well wishes, it is most appreciated. Couldn't manage the update in the end due both to the present RL situation and because I actually underestimated the amount of material still left to grade. Generally speaking, quite a few parties/individuals have given quite an effective performance.

Everything that's been posted has been marked already, though delivering a polling update with only 48 hours to go seems a bit unfair. Results should be up without delay during the weekend, hoping to be in a position to resume weekly polling updates during October.

FTR, Fianna Frémont will co-endorse the Labor candidates for governor, House, and Senate in North Dakota.

Duly noted!

Peace will compete in all gubernatorial and mayoral contests where there is no Labor incumbent.

Noted, but I feel bound to note that in the present situation there's no incumbents to speak of (in the sense that I'm not simulating who they are), so in practical terms that would mean Peace is standing in all those contests. Please do let me know if you wish to modify that intent.

[Lumine]

Only three and a half hours left to tear each other to pieces, gentlemen (once again, excellent performances from several players, including newcomers to NPC campaigning).

Results will come out late tomorrow night like in August.

[Lumine]

And the die is cast. Quite a lot of activity in the final hours, may have to take some extra time to grade that.

[Lumine]

With only a few hours until polls close across ten states - and one city -, election officials report relatively high turnout, though they note it is substantially higher in three to four states. Rumors point towards New York, North Carolina, Kansas and North Dakota as possible suspects.

[Lumine]

September - Results (Fremont)

North Dakota State Election:

Standard Fremont System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / HoC)
Labor Party/SF/B&B		69%		43 MP's / 17 Senators
Federalist Party		15%		7 MP's / 4 Senators
Democratic Alliance/FN		7%		2 Senators
Liberal Party		7%		2 Senators
Green Party		1%		No seats
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Total				50 MP's / 25 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Labor Party, victory on first round

Incoming Legislature:
Labor Senate Majority / Labor HoC Majority

Idaho State Election:

Standard Fremont System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / HoC)
Labor Party/SF/B&B		54%		38 MP's / 15 Senators
Democratic Alliance/FN		16%		6 MP's / 4 Senators
Federalist Party		15%		6 MP's / 4 Senators
Liberal Party		9%		2 Senators
Green Party		4%		No seats
Peace Party		2%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Total				50 MP's / 25 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Labor Party, victory on first round

Incoming Legislature:
Labor Senate Majority / Labor HoC Majority

Iowa State Election:

Standard Fremont System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / HoC)
Federalist Party		39%		32 MP's/ 16 Senators
Labor Party/SF/B&B		38%		31 MP's / 15 Senators
Democratic Alliance/FN		14%		13 MP's / 6 Senators
Liberal Party		7%		4 MP's / 3 Senators
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Green Party		1%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Total				80 MP's / 40 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Federalist Party, defeats Labor 55-45 on final round

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Senate Minority / Federalist HoC Minority

Los Angeles Mayoral Election:

RCV System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)
Labor Party		48%
Democratic Alliance/AFP		27%
Federalist Party		17%
Liberal Party		7%
Peace Party		1%
Green Party		0%
Law and Justice Party		0%

Incoming Mayor:
Labor Party, defeats DA 53-47 on final round

September 2020 - Results (South)

West Virginia State Election:

Standard South System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / House)
Federalist Party		46%		59 Rep / 19 Senators
Labor Party		28%		27 Rep / 8 Senators
Democratic Alliance/AFP		15%		9 Rep / 5 Senators
Liberal Party		9%		5 Rep / 2 Senators
Dixieland Patriots Party		1%		No seats
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Green Party		0%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Total				100 Representatives / 34 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Federalist Party

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Senate Majority / Federalist House Majority

Mississippi State Election:

Standard South System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / House)
Federalist Party		54%		74 Rep / 30 Senators
Labor Party		18%		19 Rep / 9 Senators
Democratic Alliance/AFP		14%		15 Rep / 7 Senators
Dixieland Patriots Party		12%		14 Rep /6 Senators
Liberal Party		1%		No seats
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Green Party		0%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Total				122 Representatives / 52 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Federalist Party

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Senate Majority / Federalist House Majority

Kansas State Election:

Standard South System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / House)
Democratic Alliance/AFP		32%		44 Rep / 15 Senators
Federalist Party		30%		39 Rep / 13 Senators
Labor Party		27%		35 Rep / 10 Senators
Liberal Party		8%		7 Rep / 2 Senators
Dixieland Patriots Party		1%		No seats
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		1%		No seats
Green Party		0%		No seats
Total				125 Representatives / 40 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Democratic Alliance

Incoming Legislature:
Democratic Alliance Senate Minority / Democratic Alliance House Minority

North Carolina State Election:

Standard South System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / House)
Federalist Party		56%		74 Rep / 30 Senators
Democratic Alliance/AFP		21%		24 Rep / 10 Senators
Labor Party		20%		22 Rep / 10 Senators
Liberal Party		2%		No seats
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Dixieland Patriots Party		0%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Green Party		0%		No seats
Total				120 Representatives / 50 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Federalist Party

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Senate Majority / Federalist House Majority

September 2020 - Results (Lincoln)

New York State Election:

House of Representatives elected via MMP

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / House)
Federalist Party		33%		55 Rep / 25 Senators
Liberal Party		26%		37 Rep / 15 Senators
Labor Party/Tricolor Party		24%		33 Rep / 13 Senators
Democratic Alliance		19%		25 Rep / 10 Senators
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Green Party		0%		No seats
Total				150 Representatives / 63 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Federalist Party

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Senate Minority / Federalist House Minority

Massachusetts State Election:

House of Representatives elected via PR Party List

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / House)
Labor Party/Tricolor Party		33%		55 Rep / 15 Senators
Federalist Party		27%		45 Rep / 12 Senators
Democratic Alliance		26%		42 Rep / 9 Senators
Liberal Party		13%		18 Rep / 4 Senators
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Green Party		0%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Total				160 Representatives / 40 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Labor Party

Incoming Legislature:
Labor Senate Minority / Labor House Minority

Virgin Islands State Election:

House of Representatives elected via PR Party List

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats (Senate / House)
Democratic Alliance		33%		9 Rep / 6 Senators
Labor Party/Tricolor Party		28%		7 Rep / 4 Senators
Federalist Party		23%		6 Rep / 3 Senators
Liberal Party		15%		3 Rep / 2 Senators
Peace Party		1%		No seats
Green Party		0%		No seats
Law and Justice Party		0%		No seats
Total				25 Representatives / 15 Senators

Incoming Governor:
Democratic Alliance

Incoming Legislature:
Democratic Alliance Senate Minority / Democratic Alliance House Minority

September 2020 - National Results

Executives:

Party		Governors
Labor Party		12 (+3)
Federalist Party		10 (+5)
Democratic Alliance		7 (+2)

Party		Mayors
Federalist Party		1
Democratic Alliance		1
Labor Party		1 (+1)

State Legislators:

Party/Alliance		Seats
Labor Party/Allies		2071 (+491)
Federalist Party		1263 (+553)
Democratic Alliance/Allies		1111 (+272)
Liberal Party		272 (+124)
Dixieland Patriots Party		22 (+20)
Green Party		20 (-88)
Peace Party		16 (=)
Law and Justice Party		1 (=)

[Lumine]

This is one month in which the specific focus of each party campaign led to interesting results. I need to make quite a few points on the post-mortem, will be up between Sunday and Monday.

[Sirius_]

Would anybody be interested in a general party debate for NPC elections?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Would anybody be interested in a general party debate for NPC elections?

How would that work? The parties would inevitably be debating the same issues and saying the same things every month regardless of what states and cities are up. Debates are pretty pointless if they don't involve real players campaigning on their real records and ideas.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Would anybody be interested in a general party debate for NPC elections?

How would that work? The parties would inevitably be debating the same issues and saying the same things every month regardless of what states and cities are up. Debates are pretty pointless if they don't involve real players campaigning on their real records and ideas.

I’d assume it would have the party leaders debating. So MB v. NCY v. Jimmy v. Koopa v. Poirot right now.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I also think that a national debate between parties kind of ruins the fun in campaigning in individual states. Like I would be a Labor surrogate to Alaska to talk about conserving their dividend program or go to West Virginia to talk about gun rights. The national Labor party all but officially supports gun control, but in my WV speech I said "Well we're different on this issue here and I can say that because I voted for gun rights myself."

And obviously Sev and Blairite are good surrogates for their respective parties in Los Angeles but not, say, Mississippi.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I agree with Scott: debates would be boring and pointless in this context.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

almost forgot

North Dakota State Election:

Standard Fremont System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)
Labor Party/SF/B&B		69%

nice

[Sirius_]

I also think that a national debate between parties kind of ruins the fun in campaigning in individual states. Like I would be a Labor surrogate to Alaska to talk about conserving their dividend program or go to West Virginia to talk about gun rights. The national Labor party all but officially supports gun control, but in my WV speech I said "Well we're different on this issue here and I can say that because I voted for gun rights myself."

And obviously Sev and Blairite are good surrogates for their respective parties in Los Angeles but not, say, Mississippi.

The purporse of the debate would be to fulfill the current inability for the campaigns to directly respond to each other. Roght now, if Party A says something about Party B it's difficult for party B to respond to their claims. It would not replace the ground campaigning much as debates don't replace ground campaigning irl. But I feel as though a platform for the campaigns to actually debate each other is needed.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

In a debate, questions could be tailored to the specific issues that the states are dealing with during that month. If a party wishes to openly declare that they're willing to compromise outside of their usual national stance in order to appeal to a certain state's electorate, they can do it. It's not like showing a little bit of ideology would hurt Labor's bottom line anyway. 

And of course, it will let parties clarify the narrative when doing regular campaign events so that dishonest attacks can be highlighted since we've seen Labor attack other parties based on issues that are irrelevant to the game.

[OBD]

In a debate, questions could be tailored to the specific issues that the states are dealing with during that month. If a party wishes to openly declare that they're willing to compromise outside of their usual national stance in order to appeal to a certain state's electorate, they can do it. It's not like showing a little bit of ideology would hurt Labor's bottom line anyway. 

And of course, it will let parties clarify the narrative when doing regular campaign events so that dishonest attacks can be highlighted since we've seen Labor attack other parties based on issues that are irrelevant to the game.

Bah. Y'all have done it too.

I won't speak for MB and party leadership but I do concur that this merely provides a platform for opposition parties to slander us, while also making tailoring campaigns for individual states impossible (as Scott said). Let's keep this NPC stuff to the campaign trail (though a reasonable compromise could be having Atlasia debates, such as the upcoming MB-Ninja Presidential debate, count for campaign points).

[Lumine]

Strictly speaking, the system is meant to allow for debates. Parties or players would have to agree on who debates and - for extra flexibility - whether they're meant to impact a state or the national results (I don't mind either), which would then be graded much like I grade speeches, ads and other campaign material (ideally someone else would host and/or come up with the questions to increase transparency).

Admittedly this has limitations because of how written debates work - unless people eventually tried to experiment with a live debate -, but the mechanism is there if players want to experiment and it can serve a purpose in terms of having an impact, and I certainly wouldn't mind giving it a try on October.

[Sirius_]

In a debate, questions could be tailored to the specific issues that the states are dealing with during that month. If a party wishes to openly declare that they're willing to compromise outside of their usual national stance in order to appeal to a certain state's electorate, they can do it. It's not like showing a little bit of ideology would hurt Labor's bottom line anyway. 

And of course, it will let parties clarify the narrative when doing regular campaign events so that dishonest attacks can be highlighted since we've seen Labor attack other parties based on issues that are irrelevant to the game.

Bah. Y'all have done it too.

I won't speak for MB and party leadership but I do concur that this merely provides a platform for opposition parties to slander us, while also making tailoring campaigns for individual states impossible (as Scott said). Let's keep this NPC stuff to the campaign trail (though a reasonable compromise could be having Atlasia debates, such as the upcoming MB-Ninja Presidential debate, count for campaign points).

If you feel the other parties attack Labor unfairly you should support this, no? Or we can all just devolve into attacks and slander with no chance the refute any of it since we're all campaigning in a bubble anyway.

[OBD]

In a debate, questions could be tailored to the specific issues that the states are dealing with during that month. If a party wishes to openly declare that they're willing to compromise outside of their usual national stance in order to appeal to a certain state's electorate, they can do it. It's not like showing a little bit of ideology would hurt Labor's bottom line anyway. 

And of course, it will let parties clarify the narrative when doing regular campaign events so that dishonest attacks can be highlighted since we've seen Labor attack other parties based on issues that are irrelevant to the game.

Bah. Y'all have done it too.

I won't speak for MB and party leadership but I do concur that this merely provides a platform for opposition parties to slander us, while also making tailoring campaigns for individual states impossible (as Scott said). Let's keep this NPC stuff to the campaign trail (though a reasonable compromise could be having Atlasia debates, such as the upcoming MB-Ninja Presidential debate, count for campaign points).

If you feel the other parties attack Labor unfairly you should support this, no? Or we can all just devolve into attacks and slander with no chance the refute any of it since we're all campaigning in a bubble anyway.

If you're saying we should give you and the Federalists a platform to attack Labor with slanderous drivel from two fronts, I'd respectfully decline. Get a life.

[Sirius_]

In a debate, questions could be tailored to the specific issues that the states are dealing with during that month. If a party wishes to openly declare that they're willing to compromise outside of their usual national stance in order to appeal to a certain state's electorate, they can do it. It's not like showing a little bit of ideology would hurt Labor's bottom line anyway. 

And of course, it will let parties clarify the narrative when doing regular campaign events so that dishonest attacks can be highlighted since we've seen Labor attack other parties based on issues that are irrelevant to the game.

Bah. Y'all have done it too.

I won't speak for MB and party leadership but I do concur that this merely provides a platform for opposition parties to slander us, while also making tailoring campaigns for individual states impossible (as Scott said). Let's keep this NPC stuff to the campaign trail (though a reasonable compromise could be having Atlasia debates, such as the upcoming MB-Ninja Presidential debate, count for campaign points).

If you feel the other parties attack Labor unfairly you should support this, no? Or we can all just devolve into attacks and slander with no chance the refute any of it since we're all campaigning in a bubble anyway.

If you're saying we should give you and the Federalists a platform to attack Labor with slanderous drivel from two fronts, I'd respectfully decline. Get a life.

You play this game too.

[Pericles]

Yeah, I don't think this will be appropriate for NPC elections. Maybe if you have a unique situation where multiple people are entirely focused on a single state. However these are state elections, not federal elections, Democrats and Republicans don't have federal debates for state legislative elections.

[Lumine]

Would really appreciate it if people could keep the partisan discussion out of this thread - and refrain from personal attacks period -, it literally has nothing to do with game mechanics. The mechanism itself will be allowed if people wish to use it.

Writing the post-mortem now.

[Continential]

In a debate, questions could be tailored to the specific issues that the states are dealing with during that month. If a party wishes to openly declare that they're willing to compromise outside of their usual national stance in order to appeal to a certain state's electorate, they can do it. It's not like showing a little bit of ideology would hurt Labor's bottom line anyway. 

And of course, it will let parties clarify the narrative when doing regular campaign events so that dishonest attacks can be highlighted since we've seen Labor attack other parties based on issues that are irrelevant to the game.

Bah. Y'all have done it too.

I won't speak for MB and party leadership but I do concur that this merely provides a platform for opposition parties to slander us, while also making tailoring campaigns for individual states impossible (as Scott said). Let's keep this NPC stuff to the campaign trail (though a reasonable compromise could be having Atlasia debates, such as the upcoming MB-Ninja Presidential debate, count for campaign points).

If you feel the other parties attack Labor unfairly you should support this, no? Or we can all just devolve into attacks and slander with no chance the refute any of it since we're all campaigning in a bubble anyway.

If you're saying we should give you and the Federalists a platform to attack Labor with slanderous drivel from two fronts, I'd respectfully decline. Get a life.

You forgot Peace exists

[Continential]

Also, you lost your life by registering on the then Atlas forum on November 15th, 2016 and I did on June 8th, 2018