[DRAFT] One Vote Short

[Knootoss]

EDIT: Proposal version 2!

Name: One Vote Short

Description: While you were trying to pass a budget resolution that would cut back on bureaucratic overhead, a few Members of Parliament have defected to vote with the opposition. After frantic negotiations, the budget resolution remains one vote short of being passed.
Validity: Not valid for dictatorships aka countries with low political freedoms.

[option] "I would have voted for the budget if everyone hadn't been ignoring my amendments", wails @@RANDOMNAME@@, who represents a poor, backwater rural district. "I'm sure there is room in there for a subsidy to to re-open the old mines? I just want some decent, well-paying jobs for my constituents."
[effect] The government heavily subsidises the operation of loss-making mining pits and quarries.
[stats] commerce spending increases significantly, taxes increase significantly, uranium mining increases significantly, employment increases, compassion increases slightly, other department spending decreases slightly, political apathy decreases, environment decreases, other industries decrease slightly.

[option]"You shouldn't have to put up with that sort of vote-buying, my trusted old friend", whispers @@RANDOMNAME@@, the government Whip, after stepping out from a shadowy corner of your office. "Just let me go out and 'remind' these defectors that they should be loyal to the party, to the country and to you. Just don't ask me how I'll do it. I couldn't possibly comment."
[effect] A majority of the nations' elected representatives can always be relied upon to vote with the government.
[stats]political apathy increases significantly, corruption increases significantly, authoritarianism increases, political freedoms decrease slightly, taxes decrease significantly, administration spending decreases significantly or is eliminated.

[option]"What you call bureaucratic overhead, I call, uh, stimulative investment", argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a representative who has been working on a compromise bill. "Why don't we put down the axe and pass a clean budget, without all that controversial 'reform' stuff. That's how things have always worked, you know."
[effect] Citizens are befuddled by the growing cost and complexity of the nations bureaucracy.
[stats] taxes increase significantly, administration spending significantly, political freedoms increase slightly.

Name: One Vote Short

Description: While trying to pass a budget resolution that would cut back on bureaucratic overhead, the government has unexpectedly come up one vote short. Now your nations' representatives are lining up to help you get that vote.
Validity: Not valid for dictatorships aka countries with low political freedoms.

[option] "I would have voted for the budget if everyone hadn't been ignoring my amendments", wails @@RANDOMNAME@@, who represents a poor, backwater rural district. "I'm sure there is room in there to fund a new Arms Manufacturing Factory located in my district. It can build tanks or fighter planes or whatever, really! Anything that would get my voters some decent, well-paying jobs."
[effect] Vast sums are spent on military equipment that the generals say they neither need nor want.
[stats] military spending increases significantly, commerce spending increases significantly, taxes increase significantly, employment increases, arms manufacturing increases, compassion increases slightly, political apathy decreases, other industries decrease slightly, other department spending decreases slightly, environment decreases slightly.

[option]"You shouldn't have to put up with that sort of corruption!", huffs @@RANDOMNAME@@, who happens to represent a very affluent neighbourhood of @@CAPITAL@@. "The government should be tackling real problems, like the dreadful state of schools, hospitals and public transport in the capital! My amendment will pay for these priorities by cutting some wasteful spending, like farm subsidies and entitlements.
[effect] @@CAPITAL@@ is proud of its shiny new public facilities while the rest of the country is being neglected.
[stats] taxes increase significantly, income inequality increases, income of the rich increases, education spending increases slightly, healthcare spending increases slightly, public transport increases slightly, political apathy decreases, compassion decreases slightly, administration spending decreases, income of the poor decreases, welfare spending decreases significantly, beef-based agriculture decreases significantly.

[option]"You don't need to listen to these vote-grubbing ideologues", urges @@RANDOMNAME@@, an obscure opposition figure who seems destined to be voted out of office. "If you 'help' me to secure my re-election, I will forever be your loyal and obedient servant."
[effect] A majority of the nations' elected representatives can always be relied upon to vote with the government.
[stats]political apathy increases significantly, corruption increases significantly, authoritarianism increases slightly, political freedoms decrease slightly, taxes decrease significantly, administration spending decreases significantly or is eliminated.

[Leppikania]

First, I think you need to consider why a (real) government couldn't take both of the first two options, and second, I don't exactly see what option 3 has to do with the issue at hand.

[Knootoss]

The point of the set-up is that you're trying to get a vote to pass a budget. If you'd accept every demand that every Member of Parliament made you wouldn't have a budget at all.

And option three is another one of the MPs that is willing to offer his vote... for a price.

Is the setup unclear somehow from the description?

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Where are the plus sides?

I know there shouldn't be a flat-out "win" option, but as described this would be an instant dismiss for me, and IMHO we've got too many of those already.

[Knootoss]

Can you explain what you mean by a 'plus side', Almomaster? Because what constitutes 'winning' would depend on what you'd want for your country, wouldn't it? Plenty of countries want more military spending or more spending on education. Is there an alternative that you'd like to contribute that you feel could add to the diversity of options?

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Sorry, you are right. I was seeing all 3 options as variants on corrupt vote-buying. You have put in some compensation.

Still a dismisser for me, just the wrong bribes.

[Knootoss]

Well, Almonaster, what sort of bribe do you think could be added to make it appealing to players like you? Personally the background of this issue is that I wanted to go for an urban interests vs rural interests sort of dilemma but I suppose one add variation?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It's a great premise, and glad to have you join the issue writing club.

My attempt at constructive criticism here is that I agree with Almonmaster Nuevo. The options here are basically all means to buy a vote, one way or another. While that's the premise of the issue, I think what you need to go from is your current form, which is:

Votes have added up and you're one short, you need someone to change their vote. Vote is about bureaucratic overhead.
1) Buy that vote by investing in rural areas
2) Buy a vote by investing in the capital
3) Buy a vote, by political backscratching.

onto maybe something like this...

Vote is incoming, and informal analysis says you're going to lose by one vote. Vote is not specified, but is "a resolution you are keen to see pass, but which you are sure will raise general happiness and health at no cost to the treasury".
1) Buy a vote by making a concession to the interests of a swing voter
2) Send the party whip to remind your party politicians that they need to change their vote towards your government's position
3) Adjust your position to compromise your resolution, and hope that more people will support you, even if you don't get what you want.

Would be tricky to write, but this would offer more contrasting approaches.

[Knootoss]

Thanks for the feedback, Candlewhisper Archive!

What I really wanted to write originally was an issue that dealt with rural interests vs urban interests. The 'vote buying' was simply the mechanic I used to put that choice into focus. I agree with you that your proposed suggestion would be a more diverse approach to dealing with this! I'm just wondering if I can save the rural vs urban aspect if I do that, because it would assume that your parties' line is either pro-rural or pro-urban and that would be making assumptions about the player that I've been trying to avoid.

Any ideas on how to deal with that?

[A Humanist Science]

I'm just wondering if I can save the rural vs urban aspect if I do that, because it would assume that your parties' line is either pro-rural or pro-urban and that would be making assumptions about the player that I've been trying to avoid.

Any ideas on how to deal with that?

I've noticed that it's possible to put validity restrictions on particular issue options. Would it be possible to write two complete sets of options, and display one or the other depending on whether, say, a nation's Agriculture or Manufacturing Sector was larger?

[Christian Democrats]

I was inspired and thought I'd give this whole issue-writing thing a go!

Name: One Vote Short

Description: While trying to pass a budget resolution that would cut back on bureaucratic overhead, the government has unexpectedly come up one vote short. Now your nations' representatives are lining up to help you get that vote.
Validity: Not valid for dictatorships aka countries with low political freedoms.

[option] "I would have voted for the budget if everyone hadn't been ignoring my amendments", wails @@RANDOMNAME@@, who represents a poor, backwater rural district. "I'm sure there is room in there to fund a new Arms Manufacturing Factory located in my district. It can build tanks or fighter planes or whatever, really! Anything that would get my voters some decent, well-paying jobs."
[effect] Vast sums are spent on military equipment that the generals say they neither need nor want.
[stats] military spending increases significantly, commerce spending increases significantly, taxes increase significantly, employment increases, arms manufacturing increases, compassion increases slightly, political apathy decreases, other industries decrease slightly, other department spending decreases slightly, environment decreases slightly.

[option]"You shouldn't have to put up with that sort of corruption!", huffs @@RANDOMNAME@@, who happens to represent a very affluent neighbourhood of @@CAPITAL@@. "The government should be tackling real problems, like the dreadful state of schools, hospitals and public transport in the capital! My amendment will pay for these priorities by cutting some wasteful spending, like farm subsidies and entitlements.
[effect] @@CAPITAL@@ is proud of its shiny new public facilities while the rest of the country is being neglected.
[stats] taxes increase significantly, income inequality increases, income of the rich increases, education spending increases slightly, healthcare spending increases slightly, public transport increases slightly, political apathy decreases, compassion decreases slightly, administration spending decreases, income of the poor decreases, welfare spending decreases significantly, beef-based agriculture decreases significantly.

[option]"You don't need to listen to these vote-grubbing ideologues", urges @@RANDOMNAME@@, an obscure opposition figure who seems destined to be voted out of office. "If you 'help' me to secure my re-election, I will forever be your loyal and obedient servant."
[effect] A majority of the nations' elected representatives can always be relied upon to vote with the government.
[stats]political apathy increases significantly, corruption increases significantly, authoritarianism increases slightly, political freedoms decrease slightly, taxes decrease significantly, administration spending decreases significantly or is eliminated.

I like this draft. I'd make a few changes:

• To the first option, I'd add something like this. "The factory could build weapons for military use and also for the personal use of real @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@!" In addition, I'd outfit the legislator in the nation's colors or in a national flag.
  
• In the second option, I would name the "affluent neighborhood." Choose something that sounds really uppity -- e.g., Beverly Heights, Highland Park, University Park, etc.
  
• I would add a fourth option with a frustrated advisor who just suggests that you abandon the bill.

EDIT:

What I really wanted to write originally was an issue that dealt with rural interests vs urban interests. The 'vote buying' was simply the mechanic I used to put that choice into focus.

You could add an option with a suburban legislator who wants the budget to slash taxes and welfare.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Thanks for the feedback, Candlewhisper Archive!

What I really wanted to write originally was an issue that dealt with rural interests vs urban interests. The 'vote buying' was simply the mechanic I used to put that choice into focus. I agree with you that your proposed suggestion would be a more diverse approach to dealing with this! I'm just wondering if I can save the rural vs urban aspect if I do that, because it would assume that your parties' line is either pro-rural or pro-urban and that would be making assumptions about the player that I've been trying to avoid.

Any ideas on how to deal with that?

Rural vs urban, eh? A bit like this one?

https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates_Issue_No._497

Or maybe, this one?

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... iew=unread

The latter one isn't published, of course, just submitted.

I think urban vs rural issues can be pretty solid, but its best to make that the focus of the issue. For sure, add a story in to frame the narrative, but I think when your title and description imply the option is about how to get one last vote, then the options should be too.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'm just wondering if I can save the rural vs urban aspect if I do that, because it would assume that your parties' line is either pro-rural or pro-urban and that would be making assumptions about the player that I've been trying to avoid.

Any ideas on how to deal with that?

I've noticed that it's possible to put validity restrictions on particular issue options. Would it be possible to write two complete sets of options, and display one or the other depending on whether, say, a nation's Agriculture or Manufacturing Sector was larger?

Very much yes.

When I was authoring, I proposed this one...

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... #p27590167

...which basically was one issue with one description, but with different options according to whether a nation was a strong economy one or a poor one. Essentially, it was about reducing food waste, but had one presentation for rich nations and another for poor.

Of course, your more recent submission on food waste has displaced mine as pure authors get priority over editor-authors, but that's besides the point.

The above issue made it into the pool, but was a hard sell, as at first glance it looks like a stupidly overlong issue, whereas actually it was an experiment in using validity criteria to shape issue presentation. I think nobody wanted to take on anything so complex though.

The difference between then and now, of course, is that I'm now an editor, and I'm more than willing to take on experimental forms like this, if they can be implemented.

Another idea I presented, which Gnejs was positive about but which hasn't yet been used, is having an option that looks identical on the screen, but has different outcomes according to your nation's stats. In coding, it'd be two options with mutually exclusive validity criteria and different stat effects and effect line, but the same visble presentation. My idea was for a Referendum, where you could choose to allow a referendum, but that the outcome would be based on your people's Compassion.

[Gnejs]

Thanks for the feedback, Candlewhisper Archive!

What I really wanted to write originally was an issue that dealt with rural interests vs urban interests. The 'vote buying' was simply the mechanic I used to put that choice into focus. I agree with you that your proposed suggestion would be a more diverse approach to dealing with this! I'm just wondering if I can save the rural vs urban aspect if I do that, because it would assume that your parties' line is either pro-rural or pro-urban and that would be making assumptions about the player that I've been trying to avoid.

Any ideas on how to deal with that?

Rural vs urban, eh? A bit like this one?

https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates_Issue_No._497

Or maybe, this one?

viewtopic.php?t=371288&f=13&view=unread

The latter one isn't published, of course, just submitted.

I think urban vs rural issues can be pretty solid, but its best to make that the focus of the issue. For sure, add a story in to frame the narrative, but I think when your title and description imply the option is about how to get one last vote, then the options should be too.

I agree with CWA on this. But even if you pursue an urban vs. rural issue (can never have too many of those if you ask me!), please do try and rejigger this one in line with CWA's suggestions; I think it's a really fun premise.

EDIT: I don't remember the "rat and mole" draft. Man, you wrote a lot of stuff

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I submitted 75 issues before you guys invited me to the backroom, and quit about 20 without submitting. So, an average of 0.56 issues per day. So yeah, I was busy.

Here's a list:

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=cand ... /id=556265

I'm trying to beat that speed record for editing, but that bottleneck, that bottleneck...

[Australian rePublic]

Option 1. Why does it have to be a military base? Why can't it be anything from a hospital to a mine? Why be so restrictive?
Option 2. Change "in the capital" to "in @@CAPITAL@@"
There should be a why don't we have both (option 1 and option 2) option

[Trotterdam]

What I really wanted to write originally was an issue that dealt with rural interests vs urban interests.

I don't see "arms manufacturing" as a specifically rural interest. Sure, the factory might happen to be somewhere remote (makes it safer, I guess), but it's not exactly the image of an idyllic countryside scene.

Also, having even the military not actually want those weapons really removes what credibility the option has.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Cheese manufacturing might be better. It seems like an appropriate sector for a rural constituency, and there are quite a lot of beef-based agriculture options already.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I guess the classic industry for impoverished rural areas is mining. The mines open, the area booms, the mines close, and the area sinks into poverty.

[Australian rePublic]

I see your intnetion is rural Interestss vs Urban Interests.
As a person who has lived in the city my whole life, with a second house in the country my whole life, with much holidaying, to both the city and the country, both in Australia and overseas

Rural interests vs urban intrests is mostly about funding. Should the two million tax payers in City X fund for the school for the 500 individuals in Town Y. This is especially when considering votes. Why build a railway line through Town Y when there are only 500 voters there? I'm sure the 2,000,000 people of City X would vote for if I don't increase the taxes required to pay for it.

2,000,000 voters in the city outweigh 500 voters in the country.

I see where you're coming from for this issue. Should the jobs go to the city-where there are more voters-or should the jobs go to the country-where they actually need the employment?

In the city, there are many avaliable jobs, and it is easy to create a business, in the country, there are less jobs, and it is more difficult to find customers to fund a business (unless you have a hell of a lot of tourism, but we're obviously not discussing that)

uld we build a railway line in the country, or should we give the city people a tax cut (just don't use the railway one, I have already submitted that). Change your wording to reflect this.

If the issue is votes, the city will always win, because there are a larger amount of people in the city. For example, in real life Australia, approx. 37% of the population live in approx. 0.3% of the land. The remaining 63% are neglected, because they live too far from anything for the government to give a shit. And this is Australia, which is stupidly large. In size. In other nations where there is greater proportion of city people. Being a federation, we have states to ensure that they are not completely ignored by the feds, but the states themselves ignore rural areas. Even the states that have smaller areas and larger populations (such as NSW) only care about their capitals and ignore the rest of the state. And this is Australia which is unusually large in area and unusally under populated. Other nations will have much, much greter proportians of city people. Even the states which (somewhat) emulate other nations in pop. density follow this model

Once again, I like the idea of who should benefit-the city (where the tax payers are) or the country (where the jobs are actually needed). I could be wrong, but I don't think that there are enough of these, and therefore, something that is needed! Good job! Just make this intention clearer

But if it's soley about getting votes, the city will always win. ALWAYS. By such a large margin that it is incredibly unrealistic to think otherwise

[Knootoss]

Alright, that's a whole load of things to respond to! For the most part I've adopted your suggestions and posted an updated version of the draft issue in the OP and below.

I'd just like to chime in on the topic of which industry should be represented in the marginal seat: I included arms manufacturing as a call-out to the situation where some fairly backwater U.S. areas are making tanks that nobody wants because of the employment there. Having read the discussion on potential alternatives, though, I have to agree with Candlewhisper Archive that mining makes the most sense as a make-or-break industry for a backwater area. The UK comes to mind here!

Name: One Vote Short

Description: While you were trying to pass a budget resolution that would cut back on bureaucratic overhead, a few Members of Parliament have defected to vote with the opposition. After frantic negotiations, the budget resolution remains one vote short of being passed.
Validity: Not valid for dictatorships aka countries with low political freedoms.

[option] "I would have voted for the budget if everyone hadn't been ignoring my amendments", wails @@RANDOMNAME@@, who represents a poor, backwater rural district. "I'm sure there is room in there for a subsidy to to re-open the old mines? I just want some decent, well-paying jobs for my constituents."
[effect] The government heavily subsidises the operation of loss-making mining pits and quarries.
[stats] commerce spending increases significantly, taxes increase significantly, uranium mining increases significantly, employment increases, compassion increases slightly, other department spending decreases slightly, political apathy decreases, environment decreases, other industries decrease slightly.

[option]"You shouldn't have to put up with that sort of vote-buying, my trusted old friend", whispers @@RANDOMNAME@@, the government Whip, after stepping out from a shadowy corner of your office. "Just let me go out and 'remind' these defectors that they should be loyal to the party, to the country and to you. Just don't ask me how I'll do it. I couldn't possibly comment."
[effect] A majority of the nations' elected representatives can always be relied upon to vote with the government.
[stats]political apathy increases significantly, corruption increases significantly, authoritarianism increases, political freedoms decrease slightly, taxes decrease significantly, administration spending decreases significantly or is eliminated.

[option]"What you call bureaucratic overhead, I call, uh, stimulative investment", argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a representative who has been working on a compromise bill. "Why don't we put down the axe and pass a clean budget, without all that controversial 'reform' stuff. That's how things have always worked, you know."
[effect] Citizens are befuddled by the growing cost and complexity of the nations bureaucracy.
[stats] taxes increase significantly, administration spending significantly, political freedoms increase slightly.

[The United Universe]

There should be an option just to let it be and declare that the resolution has not passed.

[Knootoss]

There should be an option just to let it be and declare that the resolution has not passed.

That would be the 'dismiss' option, really.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I agree, no need for a 4th option. Looks a lot better now, structurally.

[Knootoss]

Thanks! So since I am new to this forum, what is the procedure/etiquette on how to proceed? (And if that includes waiting for more feedback I'm of course happy to do that as well. )