NPC Elections - Rules and Results Thread

[Sirius_]

The Liberal Party of Lincoln allies with the DA

[Sirius_]

Question: Is there a penalty for intentionally carpetbagging to a state that is in play?

[Sirius_]

I would like to note that the Liberal Party of Lincoln is now the Citizens' Party of Lincoln

[Sirius_]

For clarity, can comments made on a Discord be considered things that actually happened?

[Sirius_]

Hoping to get polling out today, but need to see how - and if - to factor the apparent Green collapse on it.

Will Green Party state reps switch to other parties?

[Sirius_]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sirius_]

Citizen's Party of Lincoln will run fusion tickets with DA.

[Sirius_]

Oh, Saturday 26th at the earliest.

Make that a potentially later date, just saw the amount of events posted today...

(Which rather defeats the purpose of the last day cap, but that's something to discuss on the feedback process)

I mean that was obviously going to happen.

[Sirius_]

I would like to clarify in case this was not apparent that all of the DA speeches that included a video this month were in-person events with the videos representing the speech that was given at the events. These were not virtual events.

[Sirius_]

So I’ve noticed this question hasn’t really been answered afaik, but what happens if someone changes registration to a new state in obvious anticipation for that state’s NPC elections? (Like say, if I changed to Alabama right now) is the home state bonus removed, or halved, or what is the plan?

I'm against this in all aspects of the game, so I'm hoping it isn't allowed.  And if you're in any kind of regional legislature, you should get removed from it immediately (if it is allowed).

If you move out of the region, you can't keep your seat. If you move within the region, I don't see any legal way of kicking people out for it.

[Sirius_]

Can the Game Moderator confirm that Nick Saban, coach of the University of Alabama football team, does in fact support Labor?

[Sirius_]

I don't personally think that allowing celebrity endorsements is a good idea, since either a. you would have to state the leanings of every celebrity or b. anyone can claim their support and then we have potential conflicting stories and/or celebrity arms races. Not my decision but that's my 2 cents.

[Sirius_]

One thing that does worry me that narratives will become confusing as we now have incumbency. We get a vague idea from the popularity ratings but without much in the way of updates on the states its impossible to really know what has actually caused the popularity ratings for each government. I feel like eventually we're just going to be making things up about what the governments have done in their term, and it could get toxic.

[Sirius_]

I'm gonna guess that New Hampshire and one of Colorado/Alabama/Maryland flipped. Let's see how accurate this is.

I think Colorado is the most likely 2nd flip but we'll see.

I think Alabama is. Labor likely stuck in 3rd causing another Georgia situation.

That's possible. Feds losing Alabama would be quite a shocking outcome, though.

Well, I was half right. Guess WB knew something I didn't about Alabama, lol

Its Weatherboy campaigned like mad in Alabama and Feds didn't.

[Sirius_]

I'm gonna guess that New Hampshire and one of Colorado/Alabama/Maryland flipped. Let's see how accurate this is.

I think Colorado is the most likely 2nd flip but we'll see.

I think Alabama is. Labor likely stuck in 3rd causing another Georgia situation.

That's possible. Feds losing Alabama would be quite a shocking outcome, though.

Well, I was half right. Guess WB knew something I didn't about Alabama, lol

Its Weatherboy campaigned like mad in Alabama and Feds didn't.

I thought it was so far out of reach that no one could snatch it from the Feds. But that's what I get for focusing exclusively on Labor polling health in these races, lmao

It probably would have been if the Feds got a better approval rating.

[Sirius_]

As a general guideline, can we all agree that its fair to say that promises were kept in high popularity states, its fair to say that the incumbent failed on their promises in low popularity, and moderate is kinda just neutral? So if DA has good popularity in MI, we can say that we fixed the damn roads, for example. If its low, well then we didn't.