[ELECTIONS] Feedback, news & commentary thread

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

There hasn't been much election debate going on so far. Although admittedly I probably missed some of it due to not paying attention. I've read the mailers, but I think party leaders questioning each other about what and how they intend to do things (or for example how they would approach the next government formation) might be more informative.

Fwiw I don't know how I'm going to vote yet. (Other than not Breneir of course. And probably not GP either because Im not really convinced yet they are not just Breneir with a fake mustache)

On another note Ive seen people wonder whether people are really just voting for URL because they want to keep out the Progressives or the other way round, but I'm kinda the opposite. It might be actually good for Talossa to have both of them in government for a term. If Miestra and AD formed a party together I'd vote for that I think.

A party that contained both Miestra and AD would be interesting but it would likely implode. Let me preface this by saying I do NOT intend this as an insult BUT they are both alpha personalities and would likely clash over who gets to be in charge, I do have to admit though that it would be interesting to see what they could do together.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Fwiw I don't know how I'm going to vote yet. (Other than not Breneir of course. And probably not GP either because Im not really convinced yet they are not just Breneir with a fake mustache)

On another note Ive seen people wonder whether people are really just voting for URL because they want to keep out the Progressives or the other way round, but I'm kinda the opposite. It might be actually good for Talossa to have both of them in government for a term. If Miestra and AD formed a party together I'd vote for that I think.

It is Crement who I have to thank for encouraging me to make an unqualified apology and to not take the repeated baiting from Miestra and sometimes Iac seriously. And to let the Green Party move beyond me. All of those are good things in my opinion and speak well to his judgement. I have no control over the party's future direction and am no longer even in the party Discord.

On your last note, we did just have a term where the URL and PA had an informal confidence and supply agreement for most of the term. The Green Party (as the third largest party) served as official opposition for most of the term. Considering that it would not be an unexpected development.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think that Miestra and I could work together pretty easily, Tric'hard. Both of us are in a similar position, sharing a lot of macronational political values and a similar approach, and both of us eager for others to take charge but unwilling to let our goals die due to neglect.

The election has been fairly low key, Gluc, I agree - to Progressive detriment, actually, since we do better with higher turnout.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

It might be actually good for Talossa to have both of them in government for a term. If Miestra and AD formed a party together I'd vote for that I think.

<soapbox>If this isn't an argument against party-based voting and in favour of direct candidate-based voting, I don't know what is.</soapbox>

[Tric’hard Lenxheir]

It might be actually good for Talossa to have both of them in government for a term. If Miestra and AD formed a party together I'd vote for that I think.

<soapbox>If this isn't an argument against party-based voting and in favour of direct candidate-based voting, I don't know what is.</soapbox>

The party based voting is actually an individual based vote. Everyone knows who basically runs each party and they are voting for that person to lead his/her party in the direction they feel is correct.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

It might be actually good for Talossa to have both of them in government for a term. If Miestra and AD formed a party together I'd vote for that I think.

<soapbox>If this isn't an argument against party-based voting and in favour of direct candidate-based voting, I don't know what is.</soapbox>

The party based voting is actually an individual based vote. Everyone knows who basically runs each party and they are voting for that person to lead his/her party in the direction they feel is correct.

What I mean is, in the current system there is no option to vote for both AD and Miestra if you like them both. You are given a limited set of choices instead, and forced to choose between those and only those. It stifles cross-partisan dialog and supports hackery.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

It might be actually good for Talossa to have both of them in government for a term. If Miestra and AD formed a party together I'd vote for that I think.

<soapbox>If this isn't an argument against party-based voting and in favour of direct candidate-based voting, I don't know what is.</soapbox>

The party based voting is actually an individual based vote. Everyone knows who basically runs each party and they are voting for that person to lead his/her party in the direction they feel is correct.

What I mean is, in the current system there is no option to vote for both AD and Miestra if you like them both. You are given a limited set of choices instead, and forced to choose between those and only those. It stifles cross-partisan dialog and supports hackery.

I agree with Marcel that the current voting system could be improved. I wish that we could increase elements of direct democracy and reduce the control of political parties with more independent politicians though.

[Glüc]

we do better with higher turnout.

Turnout has indeed been low so far. Only 4 votes yet on the Talossan Music Top 20 Final. Lets hope the final days see another burst of voters.

I still intend to do a TMT20 broadcast in the voice channel on discord on election night, if there's enough people around who are interested.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

There hasn't been much election debate going on so far. Although admittedly I probably missed some of it due to not paying attention. I've read the mailers, but I think party leaders questioning each other about what and how they intend to do things (or for example how they would approach the next government formation) might be more informative.

This is one of those "can't win for losing" situations. In previous elections people have complained that Talossans are too mean and personal and combative. We were told explicitly that in the last election, the URL's sharp critiques of Progressive politics lost us the election. So this election we've made a special effort to pivot to constructive "this is what WE'LL do" stuff rather than bashing the Progs. And that's the wrong rock too, apparently :D

An actual leader's debate was scheduled, but didn't happen for whatever reason. But the constructive answer to Glüc's question is that the URL have emphasized government formation, in the sense that we keep going on and on about team government, and criticized the incumbent's tendency to "one man band" forms of organization.

Can I also notice that there is a real problem implicit in Glüc's comment about "Miestră and AD" cooperating. The leader and Seneschal candidate of the URL is Mic'haglh Autófil. The extent to which Mic'haglh is not seen as a separate entity to myself is regrettable, and something we've been trying to counteract, but it seems that that can't happen until I leave Talossa altogether :D

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

There hasn't been much election debate going on so far. Although admittedly I probably missed some of it due to not paying attention. I've read the mailers, but I think party leaders questioning each other about what and how they intend to do things (or for example how they would approach the next government formation) might be more informative.

This is one of those "can't win for losing" situations. In previous elections people have complained that Talossans are too mean and personal and combative. We were told explicitly that in the last election, the URL's sharp critiques of Progressive politics lost us the election. So this election we've made a special effort to pivot to constructive "this is what WE'LL do" stuff rather than bashing the Progs. And that's the wrong rock too, apparently :D

I think you might be conflating two things. There's a difference between criticizing policies or ideas, and attacking people personally. We see some of that in this election, too, because the main criticism that I've seen of the Progs is noting how dominant I am when it comes to government activity. And that's a completely fair critique, and it's usually true whenever I'm in government because I have a hyperabundance of energy and like to do a lot of stuff. It's certainly not coming off as nasty, when compared with the last election, when a lot of this kind of criticism was focused on my character personally. I'm grateful for that!

But that's different than saying that it would be a bad idea to establish physical embassies, or that it's unrealistic, or that people would hate it. That would be focusing on our policies and challenging them.

For myself, I think that comes from what seems to be a very fundamental difference in the approach of the two parties. Our party is overwhelmingly focused on building things and offering new programs, and the URL is focused on changing laws. That was true in the last election, as well. I don't think either of those approaches are wrong, but they are so different that they are different visions of government, more than different programs.

Can I also notice that there is a real problem implicit in Glüc's comment about "Miestră and AD" cooperating. The leader and Seneschal candidate of the URL is Mic'haglh Autófil. The extent to which Mic'haglh is not seen as a separate entity to myself is regrettable, and something we've been trying to counteract, but it seems that that can't happen until I leave Talossa altogether :D

I think the perception is that you provide a lot of the main energy for your party. You're on Witt easily twice as much as he is, so people just see a lot more of you.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, O.Be]

I think you might be conflating two things. There's a difference between criticizing policies or ideas, and attacking people personally. We see some of that in this election, too, because the main criticism that I've seen of the Progs is noting how dominant I am when it comes to government activity.

It may be difficult to tell the difference between valid criticism of your government's record and personal attack when the line between individual and Government has been allowed to blur so much, but I can assure you, this is the former.

When you are in government and are running for re-election, one thing you must address, in addition to things like ideology and future plans, is past performance. Some governments likely find this quite easy; this government will have a harder time of it:

- Formation reliant on a politically extreme party, producing a narrow and often-unstable majority;
- Intentional exclusion of skilled and cooperative administrators on the basis of personal spite;
- Employment of individuals rightly condemned for sexual harrassment;
- Failure to deliver on multiple self-imposed goals related to immigration, culture, etc. (see point #2 for a major cause);
- Abuse and improper politicization of non-partisan institutions, including the CRL process and claiming Government credit for work of the Royal Civil Service;
- We can now add to the list "overzealous attempts to prosecute someone who does not actually exist".

I do not envy the Sisyphean task before you.

But that's different than saying that it would be a bad idea to establish physical embassies, or that it's unrealistic, or that people would hate it. That would be focusing on our policies and challenging them.

On the contrary, we've said very explicitly that the few and modest objectives your party is offering are generally acceptable, but that if one wants something a bit more forward-thinking, the URL is the correct choice. If we're offering any big criticism of these objectives, what we're noting is that the shift in tone between your previous platform of promising the world and this platform is the implicit recognition that last time, you bit off more than you could chew, and failed to deliver.

[Sir Lüc]

Final reminders going out by email right now, as well as the second PROG mailer. Two days and six hours left to vote.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I think you might be conflating two things. There's a difference between criticizing policies or ideas, and attacking people personally. We see some of that in this election, too, because the main criticism that I've seen of the Progs is noting how dominant I am when it comes to government activity.

It may be difficult to tell the difference between valid criticism of your government's record and personal attack when the line between individual and Government has been allowed to blur so much, but I can assure you, this is the former.

I was saying was that I didn't think that you guys had been engaging in a lot of nasty personal attacks this time around, for which I was grateful.

the contrary, we've said very explicitly that the few and modest objectives your party is offering are generally acceptable, but that if one wants something a bit more forward-thinking, the URL is the correct choice. If we're offering any big criticism of these objectives, what we're noting is that the shift in tone between your previous platform of promising the world and this platform is the implicit recognition that last time, you bit off more than you could chew, and failed to deliver.

We've accomplished some pretty huge things this term, and I'm glad we have even more to go, plus some new ideas to keep moving things forward. I think we have just a different approach to governance (and campaigning), though.