ENN Election Chat — Discussion On Exclusive Results Of Latest Poll

[Kuramia]

Gorram Manifesto?

Gorram is slang for a curse. Goshdarn. Lol

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Yes, but what Manifesto?

 

[Rach]

Now, granted, I have at least a personal interest in putting the opposite spin on your numbers, but you are overstating matters, based on all the evidence I saw on election day.

Well, you must be a better expert than me then on these things then. Here is a typical conversation:

Former Euro President - Last Friday at 9:01 AM
voted for you and brun
Solorni - Last Friday at 9:01 AM
wow lol
that was fast lol
Former Euro President - Last Friday at 9:02 AM
i saw the post on the euro discord :stuck_out_tongue:

I mean I could show you all the proof, but you're obvious not interested in that

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Now, granted, I have at least a personal interest in putting the opposite spin on your numbers, but you are overstating matters, based on all the evidence I saw on election day.

Well, you must be a better expert than me then on these things then. Here is a typical conversation:

Former Euro President - Last Friday at 9:01 AM
voted for you and brun
Solorni - Last Friday at 9:01 AM
wow lol
that was fast lol
Former Euro President - Last Friday at 9:02 AM
i saw the post on the euro discord :stuck_out_tongue:

I mean I could show you all the proof, but you're obvious not interested in that

And I have any reason to believe that? Plus there's a lot of former Euro presidents out there, Rach. Again, your math doesn't hold up.

 

[Siol Alse]

Yes, but what Manifesto?

The Radio Manifesto

 

[GraVandius]

Now, granted, I have at least a personal interest in putting the opposite spin on your numbers, but you are overstating matters, based on all the evidence I saw on election day.

Well, you must be a better expert than me then on these things then. Here is a typical conversation:

Former Euro President - Last Friday at 9:01 AM
voted for you and brun
Solorni - Last Friday at 9:01 AM
wow lol
that was fast lol
Former Euro President - Last Friday at 9:02 AM
i saw the post on the euro discord :stuck_out_tongue:

I mean I could show you all the proof, but you're obvious not interested in that

And I have any reason to believe that? Plus there's a lot of former Euro presidents out there, Rach. Again, your math doesn't hold up.

It was probably PASD. Considering he voted.

Additionally it is undeniable that a vast many inactive citizens voted. You can simply look at the membership list and see the number of people with 1-5 posts on the fourm who logged on from 9 AM on the 3rd to 9 Am on the fourth.

 

[JayDee]

My money says that Calvin's poll will show similar results to this poll. That said, the fact that Rach and Brun reached out to a lot of inactive citizens just shows to me that they wanted it more. I'll admit, I favored Brun so I'm more welcoming of this result, but I understand other's frustration. I felt the exact same way when Aex won the Delegacy, but I accepted that he won it fair and square and even defended him when Boomer released his poll.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Is it a matter of wanting it more, or of deciding that it would be worthwhile - or good - to reach out to a previously untapped group? If Darc and Sopo had realized those people were in play to the degree they were, much as I dislike the notion (at which point I'd be complaining about both tickets), he'd probably have reached out to them just as much.

 

[JayDee]

But he didn't; I don't know why, maybe because Darcness thought there was no way he could lose, but it happened anyway. On the other hand, Brun and Rach spent hours reaching out to people and gathering votes for the election.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

But he didn't; I don't know why, maybe because Darcness thought there was no way he could lose, but it happened anyway. On the other hand, Brun and Rach spent hours reaching out to people and gathering votes for the election.

Because as I said, he almost certainly didn't expect the low-engagement voters were in play, and because fundamentally, putting them into play is a bad idea.

 

[JayDee]

But he didn't; I don't know why, maybe because Darcness thought there was no way he could lose, but it happened anyway. On the other hand, Brun and Rach spent hours reaching out to people and gathering votes for the election.

Because as I said, he almost certainly didn't expect the low-engagement voters were in play, and because fundamentally, putting them into play is a bad idea.

So does that mean we should discredit politicians who receive a majority of their votes from electorates that don't work or contribute to society?

 

[PhDre]

But he didn't; I don't know why, maybe because Darcness thought there was no way he could lose, but it happened anyway. On the other hand, Brun and Rach spent hours reaching out to people and gathering votes for the election.

Because as I said, he almost certainly didn't expect the low-engagement voters were in play, and because fundamentally, putting them into play is a bad idea.

So does that mean we should discredit politicians who receive a majority of their votes from electorates that don't work or contribute to society?

If a candidate is only elected because of low engagement voters who don't "work or contribute to society" then there are serious mandate questions at the very least. If candidates can win elections without the support of the politically engaged and contributing voting block then the active Europeian community isn't determening our detection as a region.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

But he didn't; I don't know why, maybe because Darcness thought there was no way he could lose, but it happened anyway. On the other hand, Brun and Rach spent hours reaching out to people and gathering votes for the election.

Because as I said, he almost certainly didn't expect the low-engagement voters were in play, and because fundamentally, putting them into play is a bad idea.

So does that mean we should discredit politicians who receive a majority of their votes from electorates that don't work or contribute to society?

It means we need to consider them more carefully. It means, as PhDre suggests, their mandate is weaker than raw numbers might suggest, and more importantly, in the future, it means the odds of electing much more mediocre candiates increases (Brun is not mediocre, the fundemantal problem with mobilizing the unengaged is where it could lead, not this election itself... much.)

 

[JayDee]

But he didn't; I don't know why, maybe because Darcness thought there was no way he could lose, but it happened anyway. On the other hand, Brun and Rach spent hours reaching out to people and gathering votes for the election.

Because as I said, he almost certainly didn't expect the low-engagement voters were in play, and because fundamentally, putting them into play is a bad idea.

So does that mean we should discredit politicians who receive a majority of their votes from electorates that don't work or contribute to society?

It means we need to consider them more carefully. It means, as PhDre suggests, their mandate is weaker than raw numbers might suggest, and more importantly, in the future, it means the odds of electing much more mediocre candiates increases (Brun is not mediocre, the fundemantal problem with mobilizing the unengaged is where it could lead, not this election itself... much.)

I don't think it will be as bad as you think, but you're the pessimist for a reason .

It was going to be a close election regardless, Rach and Brunhilde's campaigning just pushed them over the edge.

 

[JayDee]

Internet is stupid, you saw nothing :violentgun:

 

[Le Libertie]

Most people who take polls are usually active on the forums, or at least active regulars in EuroChat.

There are also a fairly large group (imo) of older members and active forum users who simply do not vote in polls because it is perceived as too much work. I mean, I personally have probably voted in perhaps 5% of polls. There will probably be an article on it by me; but I think we tend to put far more stock into polls than into reality. A great recent example of this was Sanctaria doing a nearly perfect job as Minister and yet polling worse than many other Ministries by 10-20%. So I do think there is a difference between doing a job well and polling well. Sometimes they overlap, but not always as in the case of Sanctaria. I'd rather a person do their job well and properly than pandering to polls. There seems to be a bit of a culture of trying to do whatever it takes to poll well.

Rach, your comparison of Sanctaria to other ministers is quite inaccurate. The Ministry of World Assembly has been notorious for the apathy it receives from the region, which has been pretty consistent throughout its existence. Therefore, it almost always receives more ‘no opinion’ responses than all other ministries, as respondents are unlikely to judge a ministry they know so little of. In fact, Sanctaria had the second lowest disapproval rating of all of the ministers, which reflects that those who were aware of the World Assembly and his work highly approved of him. And if you remove all ‘no opinion’ responses, he has an approval rating of 95%.

That percentage distance between him and other ministries shows more of a flaw with the way our polls are set up, rather than people not taking polls. It may be necessary to separate what is an informed ‘okay’ response (like a 5/10 in performance) and a ‘I have no idea about this’ response. Currently, this is often impossible to deferentiate because these questions in polls are mandatory, so those unsure simple click ‘no opinion.’ This will always disproportionately hurt the ratings of ministers and government positions that citizens have less knowledge about. I thought about this flaw for a while, but that result showed excellently how much results can be skewed, which I just realized.

 

[PhDre]

But he didn't; I don't know why, maybe because Darcness thought there was no way he could lose, but it happened anyway. On the other hand, Brun and Rach spent hours reaching out to people and gathering votes for the election.

Because as I said, he almost certainly didn't expect the low-engagement voters were in play, and because fundamentally, putting them into play is a bad idea.

So does that mean we should discredit politicians who receive a majority of their votes from electorates that don't work or contribute to society?

It means we need to consider them more carefully. It means, as PhDre suggests, their mandate is weaker than raw numbers might suggest, and more importantly, in the future, it means the odds of electing much more mediocre candiates increases (Brun is not mediocre, the fundemantal problem with mobilizing the unengaged is where it could lead, not this election itself... much.)

I don't think it will be as bad as you think, but you're the pessimist for a reason .

It was going to be a close election regardless, Rach and Brunhilde's campaigning just pushed them over the edge.

What evidence do you have that it was going to be a close election? Nothing suggested it would be until many low engaged voters showed up in the first hour of polls opening.

 

[Festavo]

I see nothing wrong with "low engagement" voters going to the polls. They are citizens and have every right to vote as any other citizen.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I see nothing wrong with "low engagement" voters going to the polls. They are citizens and have every right to vote as any other citizen.

No one in this conversation is proposing they shouldn't have the right to vote if they meet all the existing requirements for citizenship. It's a question of social actions, re: the candidates themselves. It's a question on if we want the uninformed and unengaged, who won't be sticking around between elections or feel the ramifications of their votes, to be decicing our future, and if we want to keep letting that genie out of the bottle.

 

[Lethen]

You're assuming that some of those low-engagement voters won't stick around and become high-engagement voters. Its also a weak argument to say that having a voting base of low-engagement voters will weaken a mandate: with the way we're set up, the low-engagement voter will always greatly outnumber active and semi-active players. Every major election has a decent portion of low-engagement voters that vote. And the "active and semi-active players" doesn't even take into account those that are involved politically and forum-side, and those that primarily care about the social side of things and are mainly active on Discord.