Users browsing this thread:

***sandaoguo*** · 10-13-2018, 02:31 PM

It’s easy to enforce: if you get caught, you get disqualified.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Seraph** · 10-13-2018, 05:08 PM

(10-13-2018, 11:43 AM)The Serres Republic Wrote:
(10-12-2018, 08:00 AM)Seraph Wrote: I don't think private campaigning should be illegal, but it should be transparent with, perhaps, a requirement to log all private campaigning publicly (with recipients anonymised). RL campaigning has strict rules to make it as fair as possible. I see no reason why this shouldn't work in a similar way.

How would we enforce that though? We will run into the same problems we have with our current private campaigning laws.

I think that, as Glen suggests, the truth will out, most likely, but to encourage it in that direction I would suggest that the EC, when contacting legislators to make them aware of the election, should also make them aware that all campaigning must be transparent and open and for them to check any communications they receive against whatever is on record. I imagine it won't be perfectly enforceable, but I'm not sure it needs to be. So long as the probability of getting caught is high enough, it ought to encourage the kind of openness I'm referring to.

Again, I don't think DM campaigning should be illegal, but it should be open and, if I can go further, based on the thoughts I've had this week, regulated. Something like a rule ensuring a minimum amount of specific information in a campaign DM, for example, like links to all candidates campaigns and encouragement to read them, so that no candidate can just ask inactive legislators to vote for them without also giving them the bigger picture and the reasons why they think they deserve that vote.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

**Pronoun** · 10-13-2018, 06:36 PM

Education, in the sense of informing legislators about transparency or ethical requirements for campaigning, is definitely a powerful tool. I've personally just started playing NationStates again — in the middle of a Cabinet election by pure coincidence — and I'm pretty clueless about what's going on even though I've played this game (albeit very casually) in the past. It's not just inactive legislators who can be easily swayed, but also relatively new legislators, or anyone else, who isn't yet oriented with TSP politics.

I think it would also be helpful to encourage voters or potential voters to read, if they're on the forums, not only the campaigns but also some of the questions/concerns voiced by other users.

Esfalsa | NationStates | Wiki | Roleplay | Discord

**USoVietnam** · 10-13-2018, 10:58 PM

(10-12-2018, 06:46 AM)Roavin Wrote: No private votes would have been mildly inconvenient, but not a showstopper. I'd probably vote for this if it's part of another change, but otherwise, I'm not sure I can get myself to care enough.

Since we're talking about changes, how about some laws about campaigning? DM campaigning restrictions can't be enforced but if revealed they can be prosecuted. For reasons why we may want to legislate this, just look at #legislators-lounge yesterday.

Restricting DM campaigning is just a patch whose purpose is to hide the problem when it comes to fixing the issue with manipulating legislators. The root problem lies at legislators not being informed enough on our politics. A majority of our new legislators doesn't have a clue about our basic institutions and electoral systems let alone on complex political matters we are discussing.

The root problem can be fixed by having a better integration system. Dispatches and articles that explain our political system and frequently-updated newspapers that inform people on current matters. TNP, Europeia, and similar regions have this so a populist like IoU will not even make it pass 20% of the votes. You don't need to take examples in NationStates, real-life examples are sufficient at proving how the combination of an uninformed public and a democracy is terrible.

Chief Supervising Armchair

***Tsunamy*** · 10-14-2018, 10:09 AM

I've missed the fight over DM campaigning, but I'm more or less with viet here. As I'll add that I think one of the ways to solve this problem is to make the Cabinet more powerful, so that these elections mean something.

Back to the major point, though, why *shouldn't* we have DM campaigning. Simply because only one candidate has used it successfully isn't a reason to drop it. Everyone else has the option of doing it, as well.

Tbh, the fact that a candidate is will to reach out to low activity and/or low info voters is a *good* thing. It promotes activity. If I'm one of those legislators and and someone took the time to *ask for my vote* and other candidates can't be bothered ... of course I'm going to vote for the candidate that took the time.

I know this isn't a perfect comparison, but over the last several election cycles, it's essentially become commonplace to TG every WA nation individually to ask for votes. And, while I can't speak for other candidates, when I do it, I introduce myself and send along my campaign platform. In the last election, Tim vastly beat me when it came to speed (he TG'd everyone within the first day) while it took me several days. I'd like the think the result was at least somewhat due to people actually paying attention to the campaign issues.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Seraph** · 10-14-2018, 12:30 PM

(10-14-2018, 10:09 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: I've missed the fight over DM campaigning, but I'm more or less with viet here. As I'll add that I think one of the ways to solve this problem is to make the Cabinet more powerful, so that these elections mean something.

Back to the major point, though, why *shouldn't* we have DM campaigning. Simply because only one candidate has used it successfully isn't a reason to drop it. Everyone else has the option of doing it, as well.

Tbh, the fact that a candidate is will to reach out to low activity and/or low info voters is a *good* thing. It promotes activity. If I'm one of those legislators and and someone took the time to *ask for my vote* and other candidates can't be bothered ... of course I'm going to vote for the candidate that took the time.

I know this isn't a perfect comparison, but over the last several election cycles, it's essentially become commonplace to TG every WA nation individually to ask for votes. And, while I can't speak for other candidates, when I do it, I introduce myself and send along my campaign platform. In the last election, Tim vastly beat me when it came to speed (he TG'd everyone within the first day) while it took me several days. I'd like the think the result was at least somewhat due to people actually paying attention to the campaign issues.

The issue for me is not the DM campaigning, but the lack of knowledge, as Viet has said, of those receiving the campaigning and, indeed, the lack of actual campaign information in those DMs.

Basically, a candidate is messaging low involvement or new legislators and simply asking 'would you consider voting for me?' As Tsu has said, it's perfectly understandable why they would choose to do so, especial if they weren't considering voting at all before, but it leaves us in a situation where uninformed voters can majorly skew an election result.

Whilst other candidates choosing to DM campaign as well would potentially balance this effect, I don't particularly want a TSP where everyone has to send personal campaign messages to every eligible voter just to have a chance of winning.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

***sandaoguo*** · 10-14-2018, 01:01 PM

What’s unfair is the regular flip-flopping on this issue. I got pilloried for private campaigns in my favor (that I wasn’t even aware of) my first time running for MoFA. I’ve been up against people running private campaigns, and they don’t suffer any backlash. But then it happens again, and again people get mad.

I think the way it’s approached has a lot to do with who is campaigning or being campaigned for. I’d much sooner outlaw it than continue with certain people getting in trouble and others getting elected. I don’t think there’s any way we pass a law on it where Islands doesn’t get in trouble for doing it, while a more socially popular person can do it and end up winning.

***sandaoguo*** · 10-14-2018, 01:03 PM

Also, to be frank, the problem isn’t that we aren’t educating people. The problem is that we allow people with no real buy-in to vote in the first place. We’ve always had a solid chunk of decisive but uninvolved people who could be rallied behind the scenes to stack for someone. There isn’t an integration project anybody could come up with that would solve that. We’ve had players like that forever, and they’re as involved as they *want* to be. A guide to politics stickied on the forum isn’t going to change that.

(This post was last modified: 10-14-2018, 01:05 PM by sandaoguo.)

**Amerion** · 10-14-2018, 01:13 PM

Outlawing the prospect of direct campaigning is an extreme solution.

If a Legislator chooses to vote while they are uninformed, then it is their right to do so, no matter how detrimental it is to the overall political health of the region. This issue is similar to the bandwagoning effect in Assembly votes. Both are very difficult to solve without a strong approach.

With that being said, I would much rather see us adopt a more moderate stance, such as instituting a regulated system like the one that has been suggested here. Should this fail, we can and should revisit this issue in the future.

***sandaoguo*** · 10-14-2018, 03:30 PM

I don’t think outlawing private campaigning would even be legal without a Charter amendment [emoji14] My point was I would prefer it to not happen at all, than for it to be allowable for some and a liability for others. I don’t think people (in general) apply acceptability standards equally.

Not to knock Tsu here, but at the end of the day private campaigning is just people organizing into a bloc to elect someone. When two political parties tried to join together and do that, he and plenty others in TSP didn't like it and said it was corrupt. The APC was getting a lot of new people into politics, and TIL wanted to join forces to get our preferred candidate in the seat through APC's get-out-the-vote abilities. That wasn't acceptable, in large part because I was the one who organized it. But when it's a relative nobody in TSP, who doesn't have the constant aura of corruption around him, it's a case of "well, everybody else can do it too, they just don't."

Elections seem to always have different standards based on who is running, who is campaigning, and who is organizing voting blocs. I don't think regulating private campaigning is going to stop people from reacting negatively when it's somebody unpopular doing it. Or from people wondering if maybe there's something more nefarious going on with all the newbies showing up and listing the same single person on their ballots. So I question whether or not an idea like this would actually make much a difference. If not, then maybe it's not private campaigning we're actually upset about, but rather it's the outcome that private campaigning can lead to. *shrugs* Food for thought.

(This post was last modified: 10-14-2018, 03:40 PM by sandaoguo.)