Candidate Positions

[1dboy]

hi im wundy

having some thoughts on the election process. notably there's little difference between candidates policies and desires, as for the most part people say the safest things to ensure no loss of votes. for example look at moteism - mentioning at all had the entire well up in arms against you as a candidate.

to avoid continuing the practice of 'well i said the same thing as he did, but nicer', or little to no variation in ephian policy, the DMs (abala) has noted the fact that, yes, some NPCs would like to see a Gold candidate in power for x y z thing, and it's bizarre that they don't openly invest, speak with, or interact their candidates.

to alleviate that, for future elections, may each league have a list of policies, up to 10-15 different things, for candidates to run a platform on, but they only have to pick like, 2-3 of the things on the list to run a platform on?

for example the league of White candidate has to pledge to make a hospital for refugees, the league of Gold candidate has to run on a pledge for lower taxes, and a league of Purple has to pledge to do a recruiting drive for the janissaries.

if a candidate seems to be failing to uphold their pledges, the league (NPCs/PCs) should be able to remove their candidate and install a new one, but doing so obviously looks really bad so it's best to have someone who is actually good at pushing the leagues' agenda.

while i like that it is open ended, there are too many elections that are simply 'well im gonna make it better', instead of no real platform for them to implement. having a direction, one that combats and contests other leagues' ideologies, would make for a vastly entertaining election.

thats my thoughts thanks

[Doofus]

wow running on racism in a metropolitan society cost you votes crazy

[Iconoclast]

wow running on racism in a metropolitan society cost you votes crazy

https://www.efupw.com/forums/index.php?topic=704475.msg742090#msg742090

[Ramc]

I mean I would still be happy never to hear about Motism again.

[Moonlighter]

mote was right

[1dboy]

If that was the only intellectual thought you could provide for feedback, could you please next time keep it to yourselves?

Obviously the post was not about pushing moteism IG. It is about changing the dynamics of how the elections are ran, for an OOC adjustment.

[Ramc]

Well, practically the problem is the reactions from NPCs are going to be idiosyncratic to the DMs available so I am not sure this will solve your issue.

[Don Nadie]

I think the platform issue you propose has the same problem as much of IG politics: a good deal of what you can do/change depends also on availible DMs and so on. Which is always neat, but unrealistic to plan arround (and unfair, as availible DMs may have other things they wanna do!). A White candidate running on a platform of building a hospital, for example, can only succeed or fail depending, to an extent, on DM availibility and fiat. There's just a limit to what policies you can promise, with limited control! Add to this that elections are every month!

Bear in mind also that NPCs do not vote, so a candidate's elections end up being about convingcing individual voters/voting blocks, which can sometimes be done with policy and sometimes done through other means, like bribery. These individual voting blocks tend to be the cause of most negociation and policy-making, "camel trading" as has been refered to IG. I do think a lot of the electioneering I have seen IG has more to do with who different factions think will further their interest than with "saying the same thing, but nicer". At least, that is my impression! While it'd be great if Leagues had more influence than, say, Accord factions, it is also not feasible without heavy DM intervention or PCs making choices.

In general, I think the system shouldn't be thought of as real politics, with aims and objectives to change things, and more as a storytelling device. Being a politician mostly means you (rarely) get to suceed at your policy objectives and (mostly) deal with the crisis of the day. Just as electioneering has to do with how willing you are to sell your soul to X, Y and Z faction you disagree with, while sidelining another. Which is fun in its own way!

With that said, the threat of removing a candidate exists, and the Leagues can already do that if a candidate is deemed to go against the League's aims.

[Random_White_Guy]

There was some talk about this in Discord - but I think in all honesty?

If you win your League's candidacy you should be able to have some more weight to throw around by virtue of having won the Primary.

Things like trying to help or undermine the Legates should come with some sway over PCs, the ability like the Accorded Factions to control who is or isn't allowed in the League, A bit more sway over the NPC presences of the League or by proxy (Purple Candidate may be more beloved by Janissary NPC, etc).

I think it would go a long way to take back some of these woes if people knew that taking a big risk during the campaign didn't mean you were left hung out to dry after you lose and other PCs shifted towards other matters while Dedicated Politicians kept beating the drum or towing the party line.