New official NPC thread (August polls coming, campaigning open)

[Joseph Cao]

Nyman State Election:

Gubernatorial result:
Federalist win, Governor Spanier reelected

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Council majority

Good Friday indeed!

By the way, may I ask the GM if this still applies?

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

If someone starts doing that in an obvious way to game the system, then yes. Ideally I wouldn't have to, but there will penalties involved if people try to take advantage.

(So people are encouraged to let me know if it happens)

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Nyman State Election:

Gubernatorial result:
Federalist win, Governor Spanier reelected

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Council majority

Good Friday indeed!

By the way, may I ask the GM if this still applies?

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

If someone starts doing that in an obvious way to game the system, then yes. Ideally I wouldn't have to, but there will penalties involved if people try to take advantage.

(So people are encouraged to let me know if it happens)

Yeah, it's a good question since Ishan pretty clearly moved to the VI for this purpose imo

[Continential]

Nyman State Election:

Gubernatorial result:
Federalist win, Governor Spanier reelected

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Council majority

Good Friday indeed!

By the way, may I ask the GM if this still applies?

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

If someone starts doing that in an obvious way to game the system, then yes. Ideally I wouldn't have to, but there will penalties involved if people try to take advantage.

(So people are encouraged to let me know if it happens)

Yeah, it's a good question since Ishan pretty clearly moved to the VI for this purpose imo

I moved to the VI in December.

Ishan
Liberal
Virgin Islands

To populate the election maps

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Nyman State Election:

Gubernatorial result:
Federalist win, Governor Spanier reelected

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist Council majority

Good Friday indeed!

By the way, may I ask the GM if this still applies?

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

If someone starts doing that in an obvious way to game the system, then yes. Ideally I wouldn't have to, but there will penalties involved if people try to take advantage.

(So people are encouraged to let me know if it happens)

Yeah, it's a good question since Ishan pretty clearly moved to the VI for this purpose imo

I moved to the VI in December.

Ishan
Liberal
Virgin Islands

To populate the election maps

Sorry, thought you'd moved to another state a while back

[Peanut]

Well, yes, ofc I would still try to penalize people gaming the system. I hope it doesn't come to that.

[Peanut]

Michigan State Election:

PR Party List House, standard system Senate

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats
Democratic Alliance		38%		42 Reps /  14 Senators
Federalist Party		30%		33 Reps / 13 Senators
Liberal Party		18%		20 Reps / 6 Senators
Labor Party		14%		15 Reps / 5 Senators
Total				110 Reps / 38 Senators

Gubernatorial result:
Democratic Alliance win, Governor Elliott reelected

Incoming Legislature:
DA House and Senate plurality

Analysis:

Well, that was a close one. Despite a popular DA Administration, DA and Labor completely slept on this race: they stopped campaigning almost a week before the election, and it was only regional advantage, pure base partisanship, the DA-Labor agreement, and the Administration's popularity that saved Governor Elliott's reelection. This was a test of strength of government parties that coasted on inertia, against a sleepy opposition and strong Liberal campaigning. This was a missed opportunity on both sides: even slight campaigning in the closing days would've made the DA win strongly and been able to FIX THE DAMN ROADS, and Federalist attention to the state would've resulted in a pickup.

Indiana Gubernatorial Election:

Standard System

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats
Liberal Party		37%
Democratic Alliance/Labor Party		35%
Federalist Party		28%

Gubernatorial result:
Liberal win, Governor Byrne elected

Indiana Legislative Election:

Standard system

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats
Liberal Party		36%		43 Reps / 22 Senators
Federalist Party		30%		25 Reps / 11 Senators
Democratic Alliance		28%		25 Reps /  12 Senators
Labor Party		6%		7 Reps / 5 Senators
Total				100 Reps / 50 Senators

Incoming Legislature:
Liberal House and Senate plurality

Analysis:

An unpopular outgoing DA administration lost against a high-energy, varied Liberal campaign in the Hoosier State in another win for the party that recently elected a Lincoln Chancellor.

Wisconsin State Election:

Standard system

Party/Alliance		Votes (%)		Seats
Federalist Party		34%		33 Reps / 11 Senators
Democratic Alliance		31%		31 Reps /  11 Senators
Liberal Party		20%		20 Reps / 6 Senators
Labor Party		15%		15 Reps / 5 Senators
Total				99 Reps / 33 Senators

Gubernatorial result:
Federalist Party win, Governor Bunsen elected

Incoming Legislature:
Federalist House plurality, no Senate majority

Analysis:

Another very, very close race (the final round being won by the Federalist nominee with a bit under 51% of the vote), the Federalist campaign proved varied: from strong philosophical musings on the nature of regionalism to appeals on education, grants, and infrastructure, the strength of Fed campaigning (joined by the strong showing of Liberal officials who argued for their voters to second pref Feds) proved enough to win the Governor's chair in Madison.

In the legislative races, however, the heavily divided nature of the election showed itself more strongly: aided by residual Labor strength from their early campaigning in the state (even if they lost groung later on), a Senate plurality for the Federalists was prevented.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Labor in last place, but I'm not disputing the results for being skewed against Labor. This isn't Frémont and it's obviously not a state where Labor is popular. Parties need to pick their battles, especially if only a small handful of players are actually campaigning.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Labor in last place, but I'm not disputing the results for being skewed against Labor. This isn't Frémont and it's obviously not a state where Labor is popular. Parties need to pick their battles, especially if only a small handful of players are actually campaigning.

Labor was in single digits in Michigan last time, so it's not too surprising.

[Peanut]

And that makes the March NPC season!

Now, let me comment on each party's performance individually:

Labor was very, very disciplined and focused - sometimes to a fault: their radio silence in Lincoln might have cost their allies certain key Governorships, especially shocking given their very strong start in Wisconsin in particular (which can be seen in the results, as the state was their best in the region). I really liked Scott's emphasis in particular on a brand of cultural rhetoric not commonly seen in Labor - no question it won the party Oklahoma.

It's good that you guys focus on the actions of your officeholders in Nyman and the regional governments, and that does hold certain weight in my final calculations.

As for your deal with the DA, it worked out really well for you because you didn't sit on your laurels even when it seemed like a done deal: Oklahoma and Alaska saw a ton of visits in the closing stretch, and the rhetoric used in those states was very well-tailored (even if a bit inconsistent at times - Kaiser's dig at the Philly Plan probably was not very interesting for a Fremont audience, but the rest of his campaigning to turn Oklahoma/Alaska red were very effective).

Federalists, you guys were probably the best campaigners this cycle, and I think you won it (even after losing the OK Governor election). A very important point, however:  we cannot overstate how important WM was for that. On Lokcord I mentioned that WM was probably the Fed Scott: the back and forth between them on cultural issues in particular, especially in Oklahoma and Nyman, as well as their isotropic campaigning in Miami, was fascinating to watch.

You ran your campaigns almost perfectly, but the issue here is what you didn't do. I was very surprised that you didn't go for a state YT won (by a lot!), where you were within striking distance in the first polling update in Alaska, and even more surprised when I ran the final numbers and saw you guys were very very close to flipping Michigan (in fact, the first version of the post had you guys as the winners - error on my part!)

Cao's long speeches, while taking a while to get used to, also work really well for what he's going for, which I appreciate. I think you guys are the party which has the clearest roles for their campaigners, and the most focus on legislative races, and it worked beautifully in many states.

DA, I expected better out of your results tbh - before I graded, I was expecting another Midwest sweep. I was pretty sad that you guys lost Miami after putting so much energy there, and that you lost two of your Rust Belt governorships even when bringing a lot of star power. However, I think you made a crucial mistake Labor managed to avoid: an alliance is not a freebie. I hope to see more alliances in the coming months, but I also want to see you guys actively campaigning as your own party, on your own issues, and in your own time. I loved the strong COVID focus which gave your rallies a distinct flair other parties lacked, but it sometimes seemed rather... inert. I look forward to seeing the role you give your party looking towards April: will you embrace your role as kingmakers, or work from outside? Defending less Governorships, will you focus on specific policies or run a more reactive campaign? You have a lot of potential, and I'd love to see you use it.

Liberals, I always love seeing Poirot's campaigning. Idk why, but they always put a smile on my face. You picked up a governorship this cycle and improved your legislative numbers, but you're still a pretty small party - not really much to say here one way or the other. You're the party that rocks the boat the least, and I respect that. Really looking forward to your April banners and slogans!

And that would be all for now folks Hope you enjoyed the March 2021 NPC elections!

[Peanut]

Meanwhile, the numbers for the final rounds where applicable:


Alaska: 
R1: 35% - 35% - 26% - 4%
R2: 37% - 36% - 27%
R3: 56% - 44%

Puerto Rico:
R1: 45% - 39% - 8% - 8%
R2: 46% - 45% - 10%
R3: 54% - 46%

Nyman:
R1: 48% - 33% - 14% - 5%
R2: 52% - 33% - 15%

Michigan:
R1: 38% - 30% - 18%14%
R2: 49% - 31% - 20%
R3: 53% - 47%

Indiana:
R1: 37% - 35% - 28%
R2: 59% - 41%

Wisconsin:
R1: 34% - 31% - 20% - 15%
R2: 44% - 34% - 22%
R3: 51% - 49%

[Lumine]

Good work, Peanut! I can only imagine what tweaking you did behind the scenes - I do hope the original spreadsheets I sent weren't that horrifying to look that -, and it looks like a strong month in terms of player and GM performance.

West_Midlander's remark when deregistrating does worry me a little, but on the whole, glad to see a clear demonstration that NPC elections can be efficiently run by someone else, and that their chances to become a long term dynamic are higher as a result.

[Peanut]

Good work, Peanut! I can only imagine what tweaking you did behind the scenes - I do hope the original spreadsheets I sent weren't that horrifying to look that -, and it looks like a strong month in terms of player and GM performance.

West_Midlander's remark when deregistrating does worry me a little, but on the whole, glad to see a clear demonstration that NPC elections can be efficiently run by someone else, and that their chances to become a long term dynamic are higher as a result.

Thanks Lumine! Your spreadsheets were actually a really good baseline - it was relatively simple to understand them lol. I did add some things and changed the calculations of some, but in general you were the architect for this season too, and I'm still standing on the shoulders of giants!

I really hope we can get WM back, and I hope his in-game friends can convince him to come back: his campaigning was really important and fun to read through.

And thank you very much! Onward to April!

PS: You know, you would be a formidable campaigner yourself... might wanna consider it!

[Lumine]

You know, you would be a formidable campaigner yourself... might wanna consider it!

Haha, I did consider it, though doing it so early would have been - in my eyes - a clear conflict of interest.

Might do so in the future, but I haven't been in a party since the Montfortians, I think.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It was a fun campaign and I'm glad that we were able to do it after Lumine's departure. Peanut had a lot on his plate for a new GM and managed the simulation very well. Frankly though I'm disappointed that this campaign caused WM to deregister. These campaigns are not meant to be personal and I tried to keep my speeches strictly issues-focused.

The whole point of these campaigns is to have fun. Oklahoma turning red and Wisconsin flipping orange ultimately has no effect on anyone.

[West_Midlander]

Thank you for those kind words, Peanut. FTR, it was not anything said by Labor that encouraged me to de-reg (mostly directed at Scott). I am not committing to anything (activity-wise) for NPCs and when I did campaign it was mostly out of my own volition; however, I will probably re-join the game when I am able.

[Continential]

Citizens will contest all local elections in Lincoln this month.

[Peanut]

While I have not been able to post starting numbers, the campaigning period for April has officially begun.

Currently, all four national parties from the March cycle (Feds, Labor, DA, and Libs) as well as Citizens in Lincoln, have been marked as participating in the April elections.

If any other party wishes to participate, please post that in this thread.

[OBD]

The WAP (Lincoln Chapter) will be in coalition with Labor for all elections, in effect indefinitely.

[Continential]

The Citizens NPC regional party is withdrawing.

[Mike Thick]

The Juche Party would like to participate nationwide.

[Peanut]

Citizens withdrawn, coalitions seen, and Juche currently in the lead nationwide due to unprecedented support among Twitter circles and confused coastal retirees.

[Peanut]

Alright folks, polling is coming up (which will take into account campaigning made as of me posting this). Really bad time for me to go missing, but I've really been swamped with rl stuff and just haven't had time to post on the forum.

I would also ask you to look at the official GM thread for some clarification on some disruptive matters.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

what exactly are we supposed to do about the pensions thing, then? We haven't had a comptroller general for over a month now, so we can't ask them. This is a serious issue. This isn't about being partisan, or looking for a new line of attack, it's about actually having numbers straight, and if Fremont's numbers are similar to what you reported, then that's a really big issue that will just get worse with time.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

what exactly are we supposed to do about the pensions thing, then? We haven't had a comptroller general for over a month now, so we can't ask them. This is a serious issue. This isn't about being partisan, or looking for a new line of attack, it's about actually having numbers straight, and if Fremont's numbers are similar to what you reported, then that's a really big issue that will just get worse with time.

Indeed it would be, if the published figures were accurate. But no-one can show me any evidence that they are. When I approached Peanut last week asking for clarification, he was unable to provide me with a source for the published figures. Apparently a "private citizen" messaged him claiming Frémont was not paying for these pensions, but gave no sources except to link to some old fantasyland bills. (At least that is what I am told.) So there is no actual evidence backing this up: just the private opinion of an anonymous informant. Needless to say, this is a very frustrating position for me to be in: how am I supposed to address a potential budget shortfall if I can't actually see the numbers?

Frémont derives its HHS budget directly from the 21 IRL constituent state and territorial budgets: we look at what each state spends and add the numbers. I have been over the figures twice in the last week, and I was not able to establish that there is a significant deviation between what the states spend IRL and what we appropriated in the FY2021 budget. When you account for the significant share of state HHS expenditures that are funded with federal money, it is actually more likely that we are overfunding HHS compared to IRL.

But even if the GM had some reason to believe that there was a budget shortfall in FT, the situation in the other regions would be much worse. The South's education budget, for example, is only enough to match the expenditures of Virginia and Texas. The whole point of the Dispatch story was that the states were having to pick up the slack for the regional government; but even if those figures are correct (and they probably aren't), this is nothing compared to the shortfall in the South or Lincoln. If we have a funding gap, they have a funding chasm. So I am calling BS on this story.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

what exactly are we supposed to do about the pensions thing, then? We haven't had a comptroller general for over a month now, so we can't ask them. This is a serious issue. This isn't about being partisan, or looking for a new line of attack, it's about actually having numbers straight, and if Fremont's numbers are similar to what you reported, then that's a really big issue that will just get worse with time.

Indeed it would be, if the published figures were accurate. But no-one can show me any evidence that they are. When I approached Peanut last week asking for clarification, he was unable to provide me with a source for the published figures. Apparently a "private citizen" messaged him claiming Frémont was not paying for these pensions, but gave no sources except to link to some old fantasyland bills. (At least that is what I am told.) So there is no actual evidence backing this up: just the private opinion of an anonymous informant. Needless to say, this is a very frustrating position for me to be in: how am I supposed to address a potential budget shortfall if I can't actually see the numbers?

Frémont derives its HHS budget directly from the 21 IRL constituent state and territorial budgets: we look at what each state spends and add the numbers. I have been over the figures twice in the last week, and I was not able to establish that there is a significant deviation between what the states spend IRL and what we appropriated in the FY2021 budget. When you account for the significant share of state HHS expenditures that are funded with federal money, it is actually more likely that we are overfunding HHS compared to IRL.

But even if the GM had some reason to believe that there was a budget shortfall in FT, the situation in the other regions would be much worse. The South's education budget, for example, is only enough to match the expenditures of Virginia and Texas. The whole point of the Dispatch story was that the states were having to pick up the slack for the regional government; but even if those figures are correct (and they probably aren't), this is nothing compared to the shortfall in the South or Lincoln. If we have a funding gap, they have a funding chasm. So I am calling BS on this story.

Can you give me a source on that, too?

Anyway, I know who said informant is, and I think he knows what he's doing.