Atlasia needs a FPTP voting system..........

[Lincoln Republican]

..........so candidates don't get ripped off.

Just sayin'.

[TNF]

No, it doesn't.

[Maxwell]

..........so candidates don't get ripped off.

Just sayin'.

Actually, that was one of Nix's Proposals

[Napoleon]

Its interesting to discuss, of course, Atlasians such as Tweed and Keystone Phil will tell anyone who will listen that its important to go back to FPTP but I personally don't see a need to. FPTP will only further ingrain our de-facto two party system (we all laughed at how fast the NM-AM betrayed their own stated principles).

While I supported Matt/Maxwell and am a bit disappointed with the results, it's not healthy to suggest changes to the voting system because your preferred candidate did not win. This isn't the first time the candidate with the most first round votes lost, the first election after "dissolution" saw the ZuWo/Jbrase ticket win the most first preferences but suffer a landslide defeat in the final round.

Our problems don't stem from our system of voting. Our problems stem directly from our party system, much like before dissolution. In fact, I see few differences between this election and October 2012. Like in that election, the Right presented their Last Best Hope and fell just two or three votes short. That's the end right there. Who are they going to run next time? ZuWo? Loss. Hagrid? Loss. Spamage? I mean the numbers just aren't there, and if they start to get there we are going to start hearing the same sh**t about zombie apocalypses and all of that.

So we're back in the two party system we tried to leave behind, and the result is that activity is at its lowest since then, negativity is at its highest since then, trolling is even worse than it was then and a large number of Atlasians are what we would call "disaffecteds", people who have lost or are losing interest because they no longer fit.

FPTP doesn't fix any of these problems- it exacerbates them. In fact, no legislation will fix these problems- only a collective attitude change and inspiring leadership and the desire to effect change will solve the mess that Atlasia currently is.

We all know how it goes. Tmth started off well, then the levies broke. Polnut started off well, then conflicts with his own party erupted and he had enough. Snowguy started off well, then fell inactive. Polnut started off well again, and then kind of went nowhere. I started off well, then got tired of dealing with the bs. Marokai, same story. I'm sure Nix will get off to a great start too. But in the end, Atlasia will stay the same.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'll take a look at the idea, but keep in mind if that if adopted, people would vote accordingly.

@Napoleon:

I think we agree that activity is organic and can't be imposed through law or Amendment.

As for dissolution, I think the fact that we are right back where we started from, indicates the failure of dissolution and the foolishness of those who thought they possessed the ability to fight gravity and impose an arbitrary line in the sand regarding the party allignments. Partisan interests flow like water through the path of least resistance towards winning and that means united behind common goals and principles. Yet one more thing that can't be imposed by fiat, yet so many insist on trying.

[Supersonic]

I think Atlasia would be more interesting with FPTP, and I will be watching to see what Nix does in regards to electoral reform.

[Supersonic]

I think Atlasia would be more interesting with FPTP, and I will be watching to see what Nix does in regards to electoral reform.

The results of the election have not changed my views, for the record. Most of our elections are not as interesting as this one was. Occasionally, someone who can keep things competitive - a Matt, a Duke, a Tmth - will run, but I don't think these results are any indication of a new normal for Atlasian presidential contests.

I approve of this response.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd disagree my second term went nowhere

[Napoleon]

I'd disagree my second term went nowhere

I don't know, I seem to recall the Senate being a mess and seats switching every three weeks.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'd disagree my second term went nowhere

I don't know, I seem to recall the Senate being a mess and seats switching every three weeks.

That so unlike the Senate!

[Lincoln Republican]

I'd disagree my second term went nowhere

I hate to rain on your parade, but, it was, how can I put this politely, underwhelming. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'd disagree my second term went nowhere

I hate to rain on your parade, but, it was, how can I put this politely, underwhelming. 

Look at the stuff that did get done despite the dramas...

[Napoleon]

It was good times outside the federal govenment though. There was that thing with me being Governor, that was cool. And there was me as a Presidential candidate, that was fun. The Pacific was missing entire elections, most didn't even notice. Tweed had some cute youtube videos. And clarence posted fat girl pics in excess. Those were the days.

I think Oakvale even quit the game, came back and ran for President. It was a time unlike any other.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-KPGh3wysw

[Bacon King]

proportional vote system, invalidate

ripped off candidates, invalidate

polnut's second term, invalidate

[LastVoter]

Yea Polnut's term was pretty good compared to Napoleon, nothing to done as opposed to intentionally harmful executive action. Do you guys remember when Napoleon tried to gerrymander a new schedule of seats in the Senate after his presidential term?

[tmthforu94]

Though to be fair, voting strategies would have been different, and Polnut and I may still have very well won.

[TJ in Oregon]

Though to be fair, voting strategies would have been different, and Polnut and I may still have very well won.

^^^ This is the issue with the idea of FPTP making the game more interesting: the strategy changes from voting for whom I want to win to voting for whom has the best chance for my side of the RL political aisle. We'd be back to two parties within a couple cycles.

[Napoleon]

Though to be fair, voting strategies would have been different, and Polnut and I may still have very well won.

^^^ This is the issue with the idea of FPTP making the game more interesting: the strategy changes from voting for whom I want to win to voting for whom has the best chance for my side of the RL political aisle. We'd be back to two parties within a couple cycles.

What do you consider the previous two?

[TJ in Oregon]

Though to be fair, voting strategies would have been different, and Polnut and I may still have very well won.

^^^ This is the issue with the idea of FPTP making the game more interesting: the strategy changes from voting for whom I want to win to voting for whom has the best chance for my side of the RL political aisle. We'd be back to two parties within a couple cycles.

What do you consider the previous two?

Looking through the results, this last election actually had quite a bit of deviation from the standard two-party system. It is closer than we'd like to a US election maybe, but still much further away than most of them we've had. I don't think there is a good way to really destroy the two party system in the game, but there are reforms that can help and reforms that can hurt, and FPTP is one that would hurt.

There's no way we can ever really rid ourselves of the RL connections because we don't live in Atlasia and almost all of our citizens are ideologically polarized. There is no mass of low-information swing voters to alienate. There hardly are any swing voters at all.

[Napoleon]

People are definitely too stuck in their real-life paradigms. That's understandable, but from a game design perspective it's a disadvantage. There's too much reluctance to forge political coalitions that cross the party lines that we're used to in RL.

Because if we do a certain party will start insulting people and hold a grudge. You know?

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's hilarious to me watching certain people get so up in arms about the standings of the political parties and our methods of voting out of absolutely nowhere. The Liberal Party won the three Presidential elections after dissolution, all of them comfortably, two of them in outright landslides, and as soon as Labor wins two of them, the most recent one by the skin of their teeth, EVERYTHING IS DOOMED AND THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM IS BACK AND EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE RESTRUCTURED FROM THE GROUND UP AND EVERYTHING'S STAGNANT AND OH GOD.

I support tinkering with the voting system and all, but I've supported that all along, so I feel pretty good about my motivations. But despite my insistence that certain things about this game need rethought (the voting systems need more flexibility if not outright change, the regions should be more creative, the Vice President needs more to do and should just be given Senate powers, redrawing regional boundaries wouldn't be the worst thing ever, redistricting isn't a bad idea now that we're on track to a constituency redrawing from the Common Market, etc etc etc) I don't really get the doom and glooming lately.

We've had parties rise and fall, we still, despite the Liberal Party's bizarre inability to just function normally, have a multi-party system, the Senate's partisan make-up has remained fresh, though has had more turnover than I'd like, the cabinet has actually been more consistently active and engaged than any time in the year prior, the Senate will end this session with one of the most legislatively accomplished sessions on record, the most recent Presidential election was effectively decided by a single vote...

This game is rough around the edges as it always has been, but this is not a game that is as critically flawed as some who (ironically, given some of the whinging coming from this thread) romanticize the days prior to dissolution would like you to believe. It's easy to forget, and not everyone can be a winner sometimes, but are we better off as a game than we were a couple years ago? Puh-leeze. Of course we are.