Politician Archive
Thread: Voter Apathy
I would like to point out a flaw in the set up of the mayoral race. First off I would to state that I have a bachelors degree in political science and haved government systems and voting patterns from around the world. That being said the way the the voting system is set up is very disadvantageous to a new mayor ever getting elected. All votes by default go to the incumbent mayor. Because the trend of people not paying any attention and actually voting almost all votes will go to the incumbent mayor. That mayor will receive the most xp and the competition will have no skills to counter the incumbent with. Campaigning is a hit or miss event. You have to be online at the same time as other people and people actually have to go to the city. Since everyones vote is by default for the incumbent campaigning by the city hall will gain you little because most people will have little to no reason to go there.
In short, having a default voting system makes it next to impossible for there to be any change in power in a city.
Yes, but imagine this;
City A is a nice, small town (or large) and they all decided upon their mayor. Two people come by and declare residence, and notice that no one voted for the mayor in power because he either is already a master politician or the city is just small. For whatever reason, they notice there aren't many votes. So, they get some of their friends to come, perhaps they only need 2 more. 1 of them runs for mayor, gets 3 votes from his friends, all in the last 5 mins of the election, and wins the city. If the city had a chance to respond, it would, but by the mayor having no votes to start, someone can EASILY take the city over.
And also, to tell you the truth, people who aren't informed vote for the person in power if they aren't upset with how he is running his position. For example, running for reelection for president is a lot easier then running as a challenger - especially if the economy and such is good. If people have no problems with you, and you are doing fine, they will vote for you if they are not informed. For example, GW Bush's election depends entirely on the economy - if it is doing well, despite the popular decision from the last election, he will get reelected. If it is doing poorly, people will blame it on him, and vote for the other person.
Simply put, the mayor should get the votes by default. It prevents griefing and it really only makes sense.
/agree with original poster.
In real life people who do not vote do not get a voice. If the people in a city are not going to bother to vote then the small group should be able to take over. it happens in real life. Voter turn out is a major factor in deciding election results. With the way it currently is the new guy will never have a chance at getting elected. He will have no skills because the default votes, and therefore xp go to the incumbent. Sure being a challenger should be hard but it shouldn't be impossible. People have to be online in order to convince them to vote for you and with /grantzoningrights you can not just have 10 of your friends build in a city and vote for you.
I have also studied Political Science, and you should no that Voter Apathy is a normal part of the political process!
In a democracy, unless people are REALLY upset with their mayor, they normally stick with the status quo.
So, the current set-up is exactly what you would expect to see in the earlier stages of a democracy... over time, it is likely that another system will evolve that will make it easy for new mayors, but what our citizens need right now is stability and an opportunity for cities to become established, stable and successful.
Once those cities have reached a level of development, it is fair to assume that the agenda might change.
Also, look carefully at the types of cities that have formed - many of them are closed cities set-up my small groups of people with a Mayor/Master Architect who wants a personal fiefdom.
Alas, these cities are likely to fail in the long-run as the majority of players (neutral and non-PA) gravitate towards those cities, which in turn become stronger, richer and more successful.
So, have some faith in human nature and see how things develop - it's about time we stopped complaining about the system - you of all people should know that no political system is perfect and that ALL of them (from Communism through Capitalism) have inbuilt inertia that protects the status quo - only a revolution or Civil War changes that and I, personally - and as a mayor of fast-growing open city - am looking forward to that!
Yours,
well, i'll say this to you then, well done! you are in the vast minority then. every town i've seen on my server is zoned so you can't just stop in and build.
now, if the mayor allowed the citizens to build and have voting rights, they aren't sneaking into town.... the mayor is aware of their presence. the current mayor should be aware of this potential threat and be sure he gets his people to vote for him that week in particular, but also be actively campaigning for votes each week, shouldn't he?
if the city is planning to expand, true 
many, if not most, cities it seems are not planning to get larger at this point.
and its not always as easy to get into these cities as just asking. some of them on my server have whole interview processes like PA's.... or ARE PA's that happen to have a city.
its all good, i think this is something that will work itself out to be honest.
I am well aware that voter apathy exists and that is my point. Voter apathy means that people do not care enough to vote. In real life this means they do NOT vote. This does not mean that their vote automatically goes to the incumbent. If a citizen, or a player, does not care enough to vote then his/her vote does not count. In the game, voter apathy is encourage because they do not have to worry about voting, their vote will automatically get counted for the incumbent. If they want the incumbent to stay they should have to vote for the incumbent. If there are 20 people in a city, and only the challenger and a friend vote then the challenger loses 18-2. In the real world in there are 20 people in a city and only the challenger and a friend vote, the challenger wins 2-0. When you are in an election it is not who has the most votes compared to the total eligble voters but who has the most votes out of who actually voted.
Voter apathy means people do not care enough to vote. If they do not vote, their vote should not count. People will most likely vote for the incumbent but then they are at least making a choice and a challenger has a chance to sway their choice.
It seems much more like an authoritarian type of government. The mayor, does, and most likely can even decide all of what he is going to do. He can't delegate much work or anything, therefore i think he earns those default votes. No offense, but when running a large city it's tough as it is to manage things, especially when you have to do everything yourself.