PUBLISHED by Baggieland- 1256- Train in Vain

[Australian rePublic]

[title] Metro Metro Man! I want to build a metro, man

[desc] It's election time in @@NAME@@, and the national government has allocated a measurable chunk of the budget to building an additional rapid transit line in the highly marginal seat of @@ANIMAL@@ City, much to the dismay of the residents and MPs of safer seats.
[validity] Democracy, must have state-owned enterprise

[option] "Admit it @@LEADER@@!" demands @@RANDOMNAME@@, the Member of Parliment of Greenville, a safe seat, teleconfrencing from a semi-completed rail station. "See this? This is the Ski Mountains line that's supposed to transport passengers from the CBD to the ski resorts. You were supposed to help us pay for this! But where did the funding go? To bloody @@ANIMAL@@ City! Again! Now all we have is this dumb white elephant. I mean, I know I forgot to ask for funding before we started, but still, you should have funded us! To make this fair, every electorate should be allocated funding according to it's needs!"
[effect] tiny urban electorates recieve the exact same funding as their large rural counterparts

[option] "Hey, we needed that new metro line!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, @@ANIMAL@@ City's MP. "How else will tourists get to North Beach? The suburban rail line? Those stations' toilets don't have solid gold seats! They don't have 40 foot Darth Vader statues either! If the safe seats don't like it, they should not've voted for the same party all the ti... I mean, you should vote for our party! Anyways, we're a tourist resort and need the infrastructure to attract tourists!"
[effect] there is a direct correlation between the number of slums and electoral margins

[option] "I have an idea!" eagerly suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, your minister of creative solutions, whilst drawing papers out of a hat. "The blue paper is a piece of infrastructure, and the pink paper is a seat. See- Bus Rapid Transit Line- Greenville, Hospital- @@CAPITAL@@, Stadium- @@ANIMAL@@ Hills. All decisions made by the hat are final, there'll be no more fighting, and we can finally all sing Koombaya in parliment!"
[effect] 6 inland cities have unvield their new desalination plants

[tiitle] The Politician Who Cried “Safe Seat”

[desc] Many of the nation's politicians, from both sides, have been accused of ranting more infrastructure to marginal seats whilst neglecting safer seats

[validity] Democracy

[option] "Admit it @@LEADER@@!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, Greenville's Member of Parliament, trying to push a wheelchair up a flight if stairs, "You haven't upgraded our station because we're a safe seat! Our emergency rooms have 15 minute waiting times, and our schools run out of chalk in the last week before summer, all because we're a safe seat! This needs to stop! What we need to do is instil the same amount of funding allocations to all electorates, despite their margins!”
[effect] small tropoical and large polar electorates recieve identical funding for snow removal from the national budget

[option] "Hey, @@ANIMAL @@ City Stadium needed those solid gold toilet seats!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, the MP of the marginal seat . "We also needed those diamond beach chairs and the 40 foot statue of Darf Vadar! How else will we attract tourists without national funding?"
[effect] there is a direct correlation between the number of slums and electoral margins

[option] "I believe that the issue here is compulsory voting,”," suggests political commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Under the current system, ill informed citizens feel compelled to choose a candidate, and therefore do so without adequate knowledge of the issues. If we were to replace our current system in favour of a more optional method, then perhaps we will see fewer safe seats, and thus less preferential treatment of the marginal seats."
[validity] must have compulsory elections
[effect] the number of registered voters has dropped 15 fold

option] "I believe that the issue here is optional voting," suggests political commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Under the current system, many citizens are either too complacent of the expected result, or feel as if there is no benefit of voting as their preferred candidate hasn't a chance. If we were to replace our current system in favour of a compulsory voting method, then perhaps we will see fewer safe seats, and thus less and thus less preferential treatment of the marginal seats."
[validity] optional voting
[effect] the number of rude drawings on ballot papers has increased 15 fold

[title] Politicians Porking- Problem?

[desc] Many of the nation's politicians, from both sides, have been accused of pork barrelling- granting more infrastructure to marginal seats whilst neglecting safer seats

[validity] Democracy

[option] "Admit it @@LEADER@@!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, Greenville'PGreenville's Member of Parliament, trying to push a wheelchair up a flight if stairs, "You haven't upgraded our station because we're a safe seat! Our emergency rooms have 15 minute waiting times, and our schools run out of chalk in the last week before summer, all because we're a safe seat! This pork barrelling needs to stop!"
[effect] politicians can't buy votes anymore

[option] "Hey, @@ANIMAL @@ City Stadium needed those solid gold toilet seats!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, the MP of the marginal seat . "We also needed those diamond beach chairs and the 40 foot statue of Darf Vadar! How else will we attract tourists without national funding?"
[effect] there is a direct correlation between the number of slums and electoral margins

[option] "I believe that the issue here is compulsory voting,”," suggests political commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Under the current system, ill informed citizens feel compelled to choose a candidate, and therefore do so without adequate knowledge of the issues. If we were to replace our current system in favour of a more optional method, then perhaps we will see fewer safe seats, and thus less 'pork-barrelling' if you will."
[validity] must have compulsory elections
[effect] the number of registered voters has dropped 15 fold

option] "I believe that the issue here is optional voting," suggests political commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Under the current system, many citizens are either too complacent of the expected result, or feel as if there is no benefit of voting as their preferred candidate hasn't a chance. If we were to replace our current system in favour of a compulsory voting method, then perhaps we will see fewer safe seats, and thus less 'pork-barrelling' if you will."
[validity] optional voting
[effect] the number of rude drawings on ballot papers has increased 15 fold

[Trotterdam]

This wouldn't happen with proportional representation.

Also, you can't just say "this needs to stop" without suggesting a way to actually prevent it from happening. If pressed, politicians could probably come up with convincing-sounding excuses why this place totally needed that renovation more than that other place.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Trotterdam is right. The premise is decent, the options don't work.

[Australian rePublic]

This wouldn't happen with proportional representation.

Also, you can't just say "this needs to stop" without suggesting a way to actually prevent it from happening. If pressed, politicians could probably come up with convincing-sounding excuses why this place totally needed that renovation more than that other place.

Thanks for the feedback. Proportional representation is actually the cause of the problem. For example, take Seat 1 and Seat 2 for example. Seat 1 is a very safe Party A seat and wants to build a new train station. Seat 2 is a marginal seat held by Party B and also wants a new train station. Taking that into account, Party A will not build the train station in seat 1, because they know that seat 1 will vote for them no matter what. Party B won't build a rail station in Seat 1, because they know that Seat 1 will not vote for them no matter what. Both parties will, however, build the rail station in Seat 2, as the voters are likely to vote for either party. The closest USA equivilant would be swing states. A federal politician wouldn't invest in Texas, for example, because Texas is too republican, whilst that same politician would not invest in California, because Cali is too democrat.

As for how to stop pork barreling.
Option 1- Thanks. I didn't think of that
Option 2- This option is saying that we should allow pork barreling to keep happening
Options 3/4- wish to stop pork barreling by removing/instating compulsory voting, respectively

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Aussie, that's not what proportional representation means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportio ... esentation

What you're talking about is "first past the post", where you can get safe and unsafe constituencies. In PR, you don't have safe or unsafe seats, as every vote is worth the same across the nation.

In Australia, the closest thing you have to PR is for the election of your Senate.

[Australian rePublic]

Aussie, that's not what proportional representation means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportio ... esentation

What you're talking about is "first past the post", where you can get safe and unsafe constituencies. In PR, you don't have safe or unsafe seats, as every vote is worth the same across the nation.

In Australia, the closest thing you have to PR is for the election of your Senate.

My bad. I live in a safe seat, know too well the effect of pork barreling and was almost certain that we did not have a first-past-the-post system

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Right, to be fair, Australia doesn't have a pure first past the post system for it's general elections. What I should have said is that "safe seats" are a feature of constituency elections for representatives as opposed to proportional representation.

I think Australia's current primary parliament is elected by variant preferential voting, which isn't quite first-past-the-post, but still elects individuals from constituencies.

I'd also note that pork-barelling isn't the preferential treatment of marginal seats, but rather the general practice of policy-making in order to please your own constituents. That is, bringing benefit to your own constituency at cost of the entire nation carrying the tax bill.

[Australian rePublic]

Right, to be fair, Australia doesn't have a pure first past the post system for it's general elections. What I should have said is that "safe seats" are a feature of constituency elections for representatives as opposed to proportional representation.

I think Australia's current primary parliament is elected by variant preferential voting, which isn't quite first-past-the-post, but still elects individuals from constituencies.

I'd also note that pork-barelling isn't the preferential treatment of marginal seats, but rather the general practice of policy-making in order to please your own constituents. That is, bringing benefit to your own constituency at cost of the entire nation carrying the tax bill.

Based on my own experiences of living in a safe seat, as well as this and this news cast by the state owned ABC, marginal seats get preferential treatment. Not to mention the fact that my local state MP has been fighting for an elevator at the local train station for ever, and despite the number of disabled people, nothing's eventuated. And the fact that the politicans have failed to upgrade Brookvale Oval because safe seat, whilst marginal seat stadiums get whatever they want. And that's before you even mention that when I was writing to a whole series of politicians, state and federal, about a civil law matter that I could not afford to take to court, and included something along the lines of "I know you probably don't care too much as x is a safe seat" and not one of them had tried to refute that. Not one

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Right, not saying to doesn't happen. Just that pork-barrelling refers to something else.

Better to present the dilemma but just use more straightforward terminology: "there are accusations that marginal seats are being given preferential treatment over safe seats when it comes to allocation of government resources and services."

[Australian rePublic]

Right, not saying to doesn't happen. Just that pork-barrelling refers to something else.

Better to present the dilemma but just use more straightforward terminology: "there are accusations that marginal seats are being given preferential treatment over safe seats when it comes to allocation of government resources and services."

I see. Thanks!

[The Sherpa Empire]

Wasn't there a conversation a while back about the use of the term "porking" in titles, specifically about avoiding it because it sounds too explicitly sexual?

[The Free Joy State]

Wasn't there a conversation a while back about the use of the term "porking" in titles, specifically about avoiding it because it sounds too explicitly sexual?

I am not speaking for the whole editing team on this, but I probably wouldn't use the term "porking" in an effect line or title; I'd also think twice about having it in an issue, because it does sound strongly sexual (rather than humorous)

EDIT: Okay, I can pretty confidently nix "porking" in any titles or effect lines, with precedent:

Incidentally, Too Much Porking is not going to fly as a title, given what porking is slang for.

So, yes... take the "porking" elsewhere.

[The Sherpa Empire]

2017? Wow, it was a long time ago.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For sure, and as I said, this isn't actually an issue about pork-barrelling anyway...

[The Free Joy State]

For sure, and as I said, this isn't actually an issue about pork-barrelling anyway...

True. Although, as you suggested, rewriting the issue to focus on the dilemma of accusations that preferential treatment are being given to marginal seats could still be a workable idea.

[Australian rePublic]

Thanks Trott, Sherpa, CWA and Free Joy! The next draft is up. Though, this time, the focus centres around marginal seats

[Australian rePublic]

Bump

[Ehenhet Dralgad]

I wonder if politicians ever try to meddle with their opposition and local media in order to make their most prominent opponents look more competitive, thereby making their own seat look less safe and empowering them in negotiations for funding.

[Australian rePublic]

I wonder if politicians ever try to meddle with their opposition and local media in order to make their most prominent opponents look more competitive, thereby making their own seat look less safe and empowering them in negotiations for funding.

Don't think it's ever happened. Parties don't appoint people who are likely to lose their seats. If you're a safe seat, then you have a greater chance of making it to cabinate. Besides, at least here in Australia, most safe seats are safe, because people vote with their wallets

[Australian rePublic]

Since noone is replying to this thread, I'll guess that I have to rank it as last call

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Maybe re-title the thread? It may get more attention if it's obvious you've taken feedback on board.

[Australian rePublic]

Maybe re-title the thread? It may get more attention if it's obvious you've taken feedback on board.

Done, thanks!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Okay, let's take a look.

[title] The Politician Who Cried “Safe Seat”

Not a great title, as nobody is "crying wolf" thematically.

[desc] Many of the nation's politicians, from both sides, have been accused of granting more infrastructure to marginal seats whilst neglecting safer seats.

Proofread and punctuate please. You've got a far better chance of being taking seriously if you take out the little errors early.

[option] "Admit it @@LEADER@@!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, Greenville's Member of Parliament,

Pick the right verb. "Admit it @@LEADER@@!" is not a complaint. Also, that opening is redundant as it gives no information or humour, and the description of the speaker is problematic as it introduces a new location without providing any context. It's implied that Greenville is a constituency, but why give us this bit of information if the world-building doesn't enhance the issue. Why not instead "member of parliament for a safe seat" as the description?

trying to push a wheelchair up a flight if stairs,

Where exactly are we having this conversation?

Also, end in a full stop / period unless the continuing speech is part of the same sentence. With NS options it's generally preferable to come to a stop, simply because text after speech is resumed is often multiple sentences long.

"You haven't upgraded our station because we're a safe seat!

Station? What is he talking about?

Our emergency rooms have 15 minute waiting times,

That's not a long wait, mate. For the highest priority emergencies 15 minutes is considered the reasonable target for most nations, and for low priority emergencies a lot of nations aim for 4-6 hours or lower.

and our schools run out of chalk in the last week before summer, all because we're a safe seat!

Assumptions here are being made that schools, hospitals and public transport are state-maintained.

This needs to stop! What we need to do is instil the same amount of funding allocations to all electorates, despite their margins!”

Curved quote mark needs to go. The proposed action here needs to be more reasonable, for example saying that "funding should be allocated according to need, not according to political margins".

[effect] small tropoical and large polar electorates recieve identical funding for snow removal from the national budget

Proof read please.

[option] "Hey, @@ANIMAL @@ City Stadium needed those solid gold toilet seats!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, the MP of the marginal seat . "We also needed those diamond beach chairs and the 40 foot statue of Darf Vadar! How else will we attract tourists without national funding?"

Hardly a convincing argument is it? Try to make the option put forward some of the advantages of favouring marginal seats. For example, it could be argued that a safe seat indicates that people are satisfied with the level of service, while a marginal seat represents unaddressed needs?

[effect] there is a direct correlation between the number of slums and electoral margins

Sloppy sentence. I get what you're trying to say, but the clarity is poor.

[option] "I believe that the issue here is compulsory voting,”," suggests political commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Under the current system, ill informed citizens feel compelled to choose a candidate, and therefore do so without adequate knowledge of the issues. If we were to replace our current system in favour of a more optional method, then perhaps we will see fewer safe seats, and thus less preferential treatment of the marginal seats."
[validity] must have compulsory elections
[effect] the number of registered voters has dropped 15 fold

option] "I believe that the issue here is optional voting," suggests political commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Under the current system, many citizens are either too complacent of the expected result, or feel as if there is no benefit of voting as their preferred candidate hasn't a chance. If we were to replace our current system in favour of a compulsory voting method, then perhaps we will see fewer safe seats, and thus less and thus less preferential treatment of the marginal seats."
[validity] optional voting
[effect] the number of rude drawings on ballot papers has increased 15 fold

These two options have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Cut them, and introduce a proper third way that actually addresses the presented dilemma.

[Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners]

Our emergency rooms have 15 minute waiting times,

That's not a long wait, mate. For the highest priority emergencies 15 minutes is considered the reasonable target for most nations, and for low priority emergencies a lot of nations aim for 4-6 hours or lower.

Presumably, "highest priority" means something like "dying?" Based on a handful of opportunities to play Emergency patient, involving what I thought was an impressive amount of blood, 15 minutes is blazing fast. Heck, I've escorted a family member who went head first into concrete -- broken nose, black eyes, blood everywhere, risk of concussion or other brain injury. That took hours.

Emergency docs seem difficult to impress. If you're awake, can walk in a straight line, and no guts are visible from a reasonable distance, then it's a boo-boo at best. Take a number.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Yeah 15 minutes to the start of assessment would be a reasonable target for someone with a ruptured aortic aneurysm, or a heart attack happening right now. Bear in mind of course that paramedics will have started treatment en route.

If you're not bleeding out, a mangled limb isn't going to be seen as fast as that, generally.