3blake7 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) In competitive video games, there is a system, things you can and can not do, there is an objective, something you must do to win, there are other players competing against you within that system, attempting to win. There are winners and losers. In that system there are many combinations of moves, each better or worse under different circumstances than other combinations of moves. Through competition the players, through trial and error, discover the most effective combinations of moves. Other players, players who lost against these combinations, adopt them until another player comes up with a combination that beats that move. Sometimes one combination is more powerful than all other combinations and a player becomes unstoppable. Other players adopt that particular combination until eventually all the players are using the same combination. When this happens, the game loses it’s value, it stops being interesting, it’s entertainment value diminishes and players stop playing. Game developers will do something called a Nerf, which is to take one of the moves in the overpowering combination and make it weaker in some way to make the combination overall weaker. This restored balance to the game, opens the door back up, for competition and creativity. The problem with our current system of elections, is that there is a single overpowering combination of moves, that any player with any hope in winning, MUST use or surely suffer defeat. This overpowering combination isn’t being Nerfed by the Game Developers of our government, because our Game Developers are players too. Our elected players won using that overpowering combination so why would they want to change it? What we need to ask ourselves is, does this combination have the best emergent properties for our country? How does this combination vet potential leaders? Are there people who would never consider being a politician because they are unwilling to use the overpowering combination? Does this hurt our country? Are there better people out there who aren’t running for positions in the government? We need to think of this as Game Developers do and create a game balance that attracts the right people. Edited July 9, 2015 by 3blake7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If it's true in gaming situations it's because of multiple plays in similar settings with consistent rules. That's not the case in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Nerf the winner-take-all voting system. Buff by making it a proportional representation system, and stop electing the president by state. The game starts by defeating the evil Electoral College. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roamer Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Games try to be balanced to attract the most players, as most players enjoy a fair competition. IRL, we(humans) also prefer fair competition, but it is more of a tool of getting the best/desired results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3blake7 Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) I like the Ranked Voting System aka Preferential Voting. Europe has adopted it over Popular Vote. Some districts in the US also use Ranked Voting. Other than that I think what needs to be Nerfed is the Lobbyists and Special Interests. It's too easy just to get money from them and go with a marketing campaign, like Sex Sells, and win when the majority of the population does not invest much effort into researching candidates or issues. I think the best way would be with Cellular Democracy. Cellular Democracy makes it a bottom-up representative democracy, like citizens elect a mayor or county executive, mayors and county executives elect a governor and the governors elect a president. The city and county councils would elect representatives for the state congress and the state congresses would elect representatives for the US Congress. It reduces the cost of an election and spreads lobbying out more. Fred E. Foldvary was suggesting to make the districts as small as a community, with community executives electing a mayor or county executive. That would create more relativity between constituent and representative and reduce the cost of campaigning even more, making it more accessible to potential candidates. Like Mayor Mike Dunafon of Glendale, Colorado, he got elected by going door to door with strippers and beer, lol. Edited July 9, 2015 by 3blake7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now